Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTLAKE CREMATORIUM BOARD) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Moody: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the small number concerned, he will now consider raising the time limit to 15 years to bring into full benefit disablement pensioners of the 1914–18 war.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 31st January which gives the Government's reasons for introducing a ten years limit. The position of pensioners of both world wars was borne in mind when fixing the limit.

Mr. Zilliaeus: asked the Minister of Pensions what are the special features in the position of unpaid volunteer part-time CD. workers as distinguished from whole- time paid CD. personnel, that justify his Department making ex gratia awards to part-time personnel injured on their way to or from their post of duty, while with holding such awards from whole-time personnel injured in the same circumstances.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: There are no grounds for giving different treatment to

the whole-time paid Civil Defences worker who is injured going to or from his normal duty than would be given to any other person injured when going to or from his work. The ground for making an ex gratia payment to the unpaid part-time volunteer injured going to or from duty is that the journey would not have been undertaken except for the purpose of his. duty as a Civil Defence volunteer as distinct from the purpose of his employment or business.

Mr. Zilliaeus: Is it not a fact that the journey would not be undertaken by the whole-time paid personnel unless they were going to or from their duty, and, if that is the case, why are they not compensated for injures sustained in the course of their duty?

Mr. Paling: He is going to his duty like an ordinary workman. However, if this particular man were answering an emergency call and sustained an accident on his way to or from work, he would get compensation.

Captain Crowder: asked the Minister of Pensions if, when a disability pension is awarded, he will take into account the earning capacity of the applicant, as well as comparing the condition of the disabled member of the Forces with that of a normal healthy person of the same age, when the disability adversely affects the earning capacity of the applicant.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Earning capacity has proved an unsatisfactory basis for assessing a disablement pension, and for that reason the Royal Warrant specifically requires that disablement due to War service shall be assessed by a comparison between the disabled person and a normal healthy person of the same age, without taking into account earning capacity in any specific trade or occupation. But, as indicated in the recent White Paper, provision is now made in certain cases for granting a special allowance to pensioners whose disablement renders them permanently incapable of resuming their regular occupations and of following any other occupation of equivalent standard.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Progress

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will state the number of tenders for the build-


ing of permanent houses submitted to his Department by the local authorities for approval since 31st July, 1945; the number of these approved by his Department; and the number of permanent houses on which work, in accordance with these tenders, has actually been begun;
(2) whether his Department now has any information as to the number of houses completed in England and Wales during the six months ended 31st December, 1945.

Commander Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses in Cornwall in the course of construction on 1st January, 1946.

Squadron-Leader Segal: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of permanent and temporary houses which have been completed in the municipal borough of Pudsey since VJ-Day; how many are in the process of building; and how many licences to build have been issued,up to 31st December, 1945.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) on 24th January. The progress report will be available in two or three weeks time and as the extraction of information relating to individual areas holds up work on the preparation of the report, I would ask hon. Members to await publication of the report itself.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: May I ask the Minister to answer Question 15, which is as to whether he has that information?

Mr. Bevan: I have not the information at the moment. It is intended that when the report is issued it shall contain the information up to the end of January. As there are in England and Wales alone 1,469 authorities involved, and information has to be collated and analysed, obviously some little time will elapse. I think that whatever complaint hon. Members may have, it will not be on account of lack of information.

Earl Winterton: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this will be made in the form of a statement issued by his Department or a White Paper?

Mr.Bevan: A White paper.

Middlesex (Sites)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the housing problem in many Middlesex municipal boroughs and their inability through shortage of suitable land to develop adequate housing schemes within their own boundaries, whether he will take steps to give powers to the Middlesex County Council to acquire land within the county boundary to promote housing schemes jointly with the municipal boroughs concerned; and in view of the growing shortage of land suitable for housing development, if he will take steps to prevent the L.C.C. from appropriating any more land in Middlesex.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Local housing authorities have power to acquire land outside their own boundaries and where this is necessary they should seek agreement with other local authorities in the county for this purpose. I will, of course, bear in mind the needs of Middlesex local authorities when considering proposals for the acquisition of land by the London County Council.

Design

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked. the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the houses now being planned, or in course of erection, by local authorities, are of such design as to include central heating as well as fire-places, refrigeration, etc.; and whether he is prepared to grant licences only where these have been included.

Mr. Bevan: Advice on these matters has been given to local authorities in the Housing Manual 1944, and any proposals received from local authorities are considered with these recommendations in mind.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the standard of design of houses being erected or planned by local authorities is up-to-date, and is he satisfied that the architects are in every case of sufficiently good standing?

Mr. Bevan: It often happens that some of the complaints of delay by the Ministry of Health in approving proposals are due to the fact that it is necessary to bring housing designs up to the standard of the Housing Manual.

Spare Accommodation Appeal

Wing-Commander Cooper: asked the Minister of Health if he is able to say what the response is in various parts of the country to the request for sharing accommodation in houses with returning Servicemen and their families; and does he contemplate making further public appeals or any inducements, in order to increase the response.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Wycombe (Flight-Lieutenant Haire), on 7th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Wing-Commander Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in receipt of old age pensions are sometimes discouraged from letting accommodation in their homes because of the means test, and is there any step he could take to alter the regulations to enable them to let?

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Assistance Board interprets the Regulations in these case.; very generously, but it is extremely difficult to make a distinction between an old age pensioner who has taken people in after the appeal, and old age pensioners who took in people before the appeal. The administrative complexities involved are almost insuperable.

Repairs Order, Chelsea

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Health what action he intends to take against the landlord of 24, Lamont Road, Chelsea who failed to carry out the repairs to floorboards and roof at these premises, as ordered by several sanitary notices issued by the Chelsea Corporation, in view of the injuries caused by rat-bites to seven-weeks-old Bernard Cheeseman.

Mr. Bevan: The council have requisitioned this property and the families have been rehoused elsewhere. I may add that the statutory notice served in this case was under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and I have no power to take proceedings. The full report of the case is being presented by the town clerk to the Chelsea Metropolitan Borough Council.

Mr. Lewis:: Is the Minister aware that many. progressive Labour-controlled

councils, such as West Ham, do prosecute in such instances as this?

Mr. Bevan: As I say, I myself have no direct powers.

Subsidies (Private Builders)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider giving 50 per cent. of the present subsidies allocated to the local authorities towards houses built by them to private builders, as an experiment to test public control as against private enterprise.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; the great majority of the houses built for local authorities are in fact being built by private builders under contract with the local authority; the letting of these houses to tenants by a public authority makes them available to families in the most urgent need, a result which would not be secured by the proposal of the hon. Member.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his refusal to consider this suggestion is due to the fact that he is afraid to accept. the challenge implicit in the Question?

Mr. Bevan: When the hon. Gentleman reads the report which I am preparing, he will find that the figures there presented are a complete refutation of his insinuation.

Rent Restriction

Mr. Turner-Samuels: asked the Minister. of Health whether he proposes to amend the Housing Act, 1936, so as to make the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, as regards rent, apply to the dwelling houses provided by public authorities under the Act of 1936.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend's suggestion accords with a minority recommendation from the Ridley Committee, and will fall to be considered by this House when legislation is introduced to give effect to the Committee's report. It is not practicable to consider particular issues apart from, or in advance of, the report as a whole.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the local authority-is itself the body which prosecutes landlords for charging increased rents, and will he, therefore, take the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation which would prevent the local authorities from doing the same thing themselves?

Mr. Bevan: Every Department is always anxious to introduce legislation, but as hon. and right hon. Members with experience of administration know, unfortunately they cannot persuade their colleagues of the urgency of their legislation.

Revenue Accounts (Local Authorities)

Mr. Turner-Samuels: asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has any machinery for supervising the housing revenue accounts required to be kept by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1936; and whether, in cases where these accounts show a steady yearly surplus. he requires the local authority with such a surplus to review and revise its rents accordingly, where it has failed to do so within a reasonable time.

Mr. Bevan: A local authority's housing revenue account is audited, and each year a copy is submitted to my Department. Disposal of surpluses is governed by statutory provisions and I could not give a direction which would conflict with these provisions or with the provisions relating to the determination of rents by the local authority.

Empty Houses and Flats

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health how many of the 606 unoccupied houses and flats in St. Marylebone, 2,007 in Paddington, 3,069 in Kensington, 350 in Chelsea and 677 in Westminster, have been requisitioned for housing purposes by the London boroughs concerned.

Mr. Bevan: Very few of these houses have been requisitioned. The total number of premises held on requisition by the Councils of these boroughs is 672 in St. Marylebone, 186 in Paddington, 629 in Kensington, 445 in Chelsea, 507 in Westminster; and requisitioning will be extended to other houses as and when the councils are in a position to deal with them.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the date of my first Question on this matter, in one particular area a number of requisitioning notices have appeared on some of these vacant premises, and may I ask him if he can follow this matter up in order to see that the maximum number of these unoccupied dwellings are requisitioned by the local authorities where possible?

Mr. Bevan: The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question directs attention to the value of this House. With regard to the second part, there is often some difficulty on the part of the local authority in requisitioning because it always has to prepare plans for adaptation, and therefore these gaps—which are sometimes headlined in the less responsible sections of the Press—are unavoidable.

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health if he is. aware that Mayfair estate agents have more than 2,000 empty houses on their books, most of which could be converted into flats and that the Westminster City Council, in whose area the empty houses are situated, have a list of 1,500 applicants for housing accommodation; and what steps he is taking to see that this empty accommodation is made available to the families needing it.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the 2,000 empty houses are not all situated in Westminster. The Westminster City Council is itself carrying out works of adaptation and repair to houses in their area to the extent of the labour available for this purpose and my officers will discuss with them what more can be done.

Captain Baird: asked the Minister of Health why the house at 145, Stubly Lane, Wednesfield, Staffordshire, has been allowed to stand vacant for five months.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the local authority considered requisitioning this house early in October when it first came to their notice, but decided not to do so as it was in a very bad state of repair. They are, however, to review the question at an early date.

Captain Baird: Does the Minister realise that the owner of the house is holding the public to ransom by asking an excessive price over and above what it is worth?

Mr. Bevan: I will make inquiries about that.

Building Societies (Funds)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the total amount of funds in the hands of the building societies of Great Britain immediately available to finance the building


of new houses; and what steps he is taking to encourage the utilisation of
these funds to further the erection of houses.

Mr. Bevan: At the end of 1944 the total investments and other assets, apart from advances or. mortgages to registered building societies, was£234,000,000, but it is for the individual societies to say how far these funds are to be regarded as immediately available to finance the building of new houses. As regards the utilisation of these funds, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberden and Kincardine (Major Spence) on 7th February about the number of new dwelling houses which have been licensed for erection by private builders without subsidy.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say that he has no prejudice against building societies as such?

Mr. Bevan: On the contrary, I think it will be found when the figures are published that so far from having a prejudice against private building—

Mr. Lipson: Building societies.

Mr. Bevan: —building societies merely build private buildings—the number of licences issued for private building in my view is now in excess of the labour and materials available, and building societies can take advantage of these licences when they need. The limiting factor on building today is not money but labour and materials.

Enfield (A.A. Site).

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether the War Office has yet agreed to release the Bullsmoor Lane A.A. site, Enfield, to enable it to be used as a permanent housing site, for which purpose it was originally acquired by the Enfield Urban District Council.

Mr. Bevan: The War Office have agreed to release the greater part of the area under requisition.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken in this case, may I ask whether he can urge on the Secretary of State for War that action should be taken to release the A.A. sites which are still in his possession where they are required for the erection of

permanent houses without waiting until representations are made by hon. Members, as had to be done in this case?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will direct my attention to any particular instance, I will certainly expedite derequisitioning.

Conversion

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Health whether he has given consideration to the Report of the subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee on the conversion of existing houses; and whether he is proposing to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report.

Mr. Bevan: This Report is still under consideration. It will be appreciated that several of the recommendations would require legislation.

Mr. Chamberlain: While I appreciate the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend refers, will he have in mind the tremendous scope and possibilities of this kind of work and impress upon his colleagues the desirability of just a little Bill being squeezed in?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid these little Bills lead to very large Debates and this particular Bill would be extremely complicated. This sort of work uses up skilled building labour, which is in short supply. I am very anxious that the building workers should have an opportunity for straightforward work. They have been involved in war damage repairs so much that a good straight job would be very good for the morale of the building industry.

Mr. Chamberlain: Has my right hon. Friend read pages 26 and 27 of the report, where it is clearly set out that this form of work is economical of materials and labour?

Mr. Bevan: I have read the whole of the report and I would point out that there are very considerable limits to the extent to which we can economically use the material and labour available.

Northern Ireland

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Health the number of prefabricated houses delivered to Northern Ireland up to the present, in response to the request already made for these houses.

Mr. Bevan: No temporary houses have yet been delivered to Northern Ireland, but by arrangement with the Government of Northern Ireland, deliveries will, I hope, begin very shortly.

Dr. Little: Can the Minister give us some date for the delivery of these houses? The foundations and sites are ready and people are waiting for the houses to be built.

Mr. Bevan: I resent the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the contrary, Northern Ireland delayed its own provision of temporary houses by refusing an allocation of temporary houses in the first place, and I added to our temporary housing programme in order to allow them to have temporary houses. There are a number of building sites available in England and Wales and houses are not available for them yet.

Allotments (Alternative Land)

Major Wise: asked the Minister of Health if he will give instructions to county and local authorities that when allotments are required for the erection of houses of any description. arrangements should be made by the authorities concerned, in the interests of food production, for alternative land to be acquired or made available for allotment purposes.

Mr. Bevan: The interests of food production are safeguarded not only by statutory limitation on the acquisition of allotment land for housing but also by the arrangement under which the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has to be obtained in the acquisition of housing sites on agricultural land. Further, local authorities have been asked to give most careful consideration to the interests of cultivators of temporary allotments on housing sites.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Nursing Service

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take official action to implement the recommendation of the recent conference of nurses' organisations and employing authorities that licensing authorities should not impose maximum scales for nurses' earnings; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevan: The recommendations of the conference have already been sent to the local authority associations for circulation to licensing authorities.

Sir J. Mellor: But will the Minister answer my Question and say what action he proposes to take to prevent maximum scales being imposed?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must realise that up till now I have not been a direct employer in this matter. I may be before very long, but up till now all I can do is by inducement, and that is what I am doing.

Sewerage Scheme, Chippenham

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to speed up the proposed enlargement of the Chippenham Town Council's sewage disposal works at West-mead; and by what date he considers the work will be put in hand.

Mr. Bevan: The town council were advised in October, 1944, to prepare details of the scheme for the full reconstruction of their sewage disposal works at Westmead and submitted their plans on the 31st May, 1045. Certain amendments of design were called for in the following month and the amended plans were received on 28th January, 1946. Minor engineering points remain to be settled. The council will then be invited to call for tenders and the Government priority organisation will be asked to fix a starting date for the approved tender.

Mr. Eccles: Is the Minister aware that the River Avon stinks horribly and is at times a real danger to public health?

Mr. Bevan: I appreciate the stink from the River Avon. It has been stinking for a good many years.

Mental Hospitals

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health how many mental hospitals during the war were diverted to other uses; how many of these are again being used for their original purpose; and how many patients from the others still remain in the overcrowded hospitals to which they were transferred.

Mr. Bevan: Eight of the 101 county and county borough mental hospitals were wholly or mainly diverted to other


uses during the war and so were parts of many others. Of the eight, one has been completely released and small parts of two others have been released. I regret that I am unable without special inquiry to state the precise present numbers of patients who remain transferred from the diverted hospitals.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that there is terrible overcrowding and distress, will the Minister see that at least the original hospitals are made available?

Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having called attention to the matter and I am asking for an urgent investigation.

REQUISITIONED PROPERTIES (STANDARD RENTS)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Health whether, now that hostilities have ceased, he will take steps to secure the payment of standard rents for all requisitioned properties.

Mr. Bevan: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of Circular 224/45 which sets out the present policy.

EDUCATION

Books and Stationery

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education if she is now in a position to state what improvement there has been in the supply of books and stationery to schools under her jurisdiction.

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Education what proportion of the prewar supplies of text books, atlases and note books, respectively, is now available for the use of schools; and what steps are being taken to augment the heavy shortages that still exist in most areas.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): I regret that I have no precise information regarding the improvement in the supply of school books and stationery, or the proportion of prewar supplies now available for the use of schools. I understand, however, that in the next licensing period, the paper quota for books will be at least 70 per cent. of the 1939 figure, and with the continued use of wartime economy standards in

printing this quantity of paper should enable a very high proportion of the prewar supplies of books to be produced. Educational book publishers also have the opportunity of sharing in a special reserve of paper, earmarked for the printing of important books which they cannot produce from their ordinary quota. Further, I understand that 750 printers are to be offered release under the Class B scheme. I hope, therefore, that there will soon be an appreciable improvement in the supply position.

Mr. Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say if a proper proportion of the printing trade operatives recently released under Scheme B is being allocated for the purpose of producing school books?

Miss Wilkinson: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: When are the Government going to tackle this problem with determination, which they have not done so far? The schools are simply bereft of the books required for the minimum of instruction.

Miss Wilkinson: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened to my answer he would have seen that we have tackled it with determination.

Emergency Training

Flying-Officer Bowden: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the delay in paying grants to student teachers; that this delay is causing hardship; and will she take steps to expedite the payment of these grants.

Miss Wilkinson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend's Question refers to students in training at emergency training colleges. Payment of grants to such students is treated as an urgent matter in this Department. Payment cannot be made at the beginning of a term until a college has furnished a certificate that the students are in attendance. Subject to this, and to the limitations imposed by shortage of staff, I believe that there is no undue delay in making payment.

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many students are now in training at the Wrexham Emergency Training College; and when she proposes to open a similar college a Llandrindod Wells.

Miss Wilkinson: Two hundred and twenty-nine students are in training at Wrexham Training College. I cannot give a date for the opening of a college at Llandrindod Wells, but I hope that this will take place in a few months' time.

Young Fanners' Clubs

Lady Noel-Buxton: asked the Minister of Education if she will state the number of county federations of young farmers' clubs who are receiving, or have been promised, grants from their local education authorities.

Miss Wilkinson: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available. A considerable number of local education authorities are giving support and encouragement to the work of young farmers' clubs, and I hope that in the next financial year still more authorities will feel able to provide contributions toward the funds of the county federations.

School Meals

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that school meals at the Oak Farm School, Hillingdon, and the Swakeleys Senior School, Ickenham, are to be cut down; and, in so far as this is in order to relieve present overwork of teaching staff, what steps have been taken to secure part-time supervisory staff.

Miss Wilkinson: Owing to the increasing demand for meals at the four schools served by the Oak Farm central kitchen, it has become necessary to give priority to the children whose needs for meals is greatest. I am assured that this step is due solely to the great overloading of the kitchen and that the total number of meals supplied will not be cut down The number of meals cannot, however, be increased until the proposals which the authority are now preparing have been carried out. The appointment of part-time supervisory staff would not enable any greater number of children to be supplied with meals

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: If the facts are proved to my right hon. Friend that school meals are being cut down from 400-odd to 152, will she undertake to look into the question again?

Miss Wilkinson: Of course, but as things are I doubt my hon. and gallant Friend's figures. I will look into them.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Education what is the percentage of pupils in schools under her jurisdiction having school dinners; and what further steps she is taking to increase it in view of the present food position

Miss Wilkinson: On the day of the return in October last 39.5 per cent. of pupils present in grant-aided primary and secondary schools had school dinners. Every effort is being made to expedite proposals for new canteens and kitchens.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say to what extent this unsatisfactory percentage is due to the fact that there are not enough facilities for school dinners?

Miss Wilkinson: 1 can assure the hon. Gentleman that 39.5 per cent. is a very good percentage indeed, considering the appalling difficulties of wartime equipment.

SCIENCE MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Education when the Science Museum at South Kensington will be reopened to the public.

Miss Wilkinson: About one-third of the museum was reopened this morning. The children's gallery and the locomotive gallery are now open and special exhibitions have been arranged on atomic energy, X-rays and their application; and the quartz crystal clock. The original Wright aeroplane will be on view and the aeronautics gallery will be reopened as soon as plate glass can be obtained to reglaze a number of damaged cases. Part of the museum has been placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Aircraft Production for a display of German aeronautical developments. The exhibits include a VI and V2, a number of types of aircraft and a piloted flying bomb. This exhibition is also opening today.

POST OFFICE

Food Parcels

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Assistant Postmaster General if he will give an assurance that, when any food parcels received from overseas are detained, the General Post Office will communicate with the addressees.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): All parcels sent to this country from overseas have to be produced to the Customs for examination, and I am advised that whenever a food parcel is detained by the Customs Department as not complying with Import restrictions a notification is sent to the addressee by that Department.

Sir S. Reed: What becomes of the parcels which are sent and disappear without any notification to the addressee?

Mr. Burke: I presume that if an address is on the parcel the addressee is notified. If they are not addressed, they should be returned to the Lost Parcels Department of the Post Office.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that parcels sent from British Dominions and Colonies containing food disappear, and the only knowledge the intended recipients have is a letter from their relatives to say that they have been sent? Can some inquiries be made as to what is happening to those parcels?

Mr. Burke: We will always be glad to inquire into any case.

Post and Telegraph Delays(Far East)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delay in mails and telegrams to the services in the East, including one of a delay of 28 days to deliver a telegram from the United Kingdom to Batavia and 14 days for one from Poona, evidence and other details of which have been sent to him; and what further steps he is taking as a result of this evidence.

Mr. Burke: As regards letters, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer on this subject given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon Members for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and Uxbridge (Flight-Lieutenant Beswick) on 22nd January. As regards telegrams, my reply to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on 6th February about the recent delay to greetings telegrams to the Services in Ceylon applies equally to other places in the East. Apart from this, I am not aware of any general delays in the telegraph service, but if further particulars can be provided I shall "be glad to ask Cable and Wireless Ltd. to make

detailed inquiry. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the answers to which I have referred.

Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have given him two instances of considerable delay? Could not inquiries be made into them?

Mr. Burke: No, Sir. My hon. Friend has sent me a letter which contains nothing more of the details of these cases than the Question. It does not contain the name of the addressee or the date or place of origin. It simply says "A telegram from the United Kingdom."

Mr. Freeman: If I give my hon. Friend information will he look into those cases?

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Postal Rates

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will be able in the near future to reduce the cost of letter and postcard post in this country; and when does he expect to be able to reduce the cost of parcel post.

Mr. Burke: I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it costs more to send a copy of HANSARD to any address in this country than to the United States of America, and that this increased postage charge was imposed to stop, not to encourage, the sending of letters? When can we expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to give an answer?

Mr. Burke: I am afraid I must not anticipate.

Family Allowances (Payment)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made to ensure that the payment of family allowances does not add to the congestion and queueing now prevalent in many post offices.

Mr. Burke: By the time that family allowances become payable 'as from 6th August next, the work arising from allowances payable to the dependants of men in the Forces will have been reduced through demobilisation by an amount exceeding that arising from the new family allowances. Taking this into


account and the improvement in the staffing position due to the return of skilled counter clerks after service in the Forces, I do not think that the payment of family allowances will add to congestion at post office counters.

M.P.s' COMPLAINTS (DEPARTMENTAL REPLIES)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in cases taken up with Departments by Members of this House on behalf of their constituents, the decisions arrived at are frequently communicated to the constituents in advance of notification to the hon. Members concerned; and if he will give instructions that the information shall be available to hon. Members either in advance of, or simultaneously with, the notification to the constituents.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I think that this is a matter which hon. Members might take up with the Minister concerned in any case in which they are dissatisfied with what has been done. Speedy settlement of individual cases will often justify direct communication between Departments and constituents, but hon. Members will be kept informed of what has been done.

EX-MINISTERS(AUTHORSHIP EARNINGS,TAXATION)

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation giving authority to the State to claim 50 per cent. of all earnings of former Ministers of the Crown derived from the publication of books or newspaper articles based on official document'; collected during their term of office.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Such earnings are already subject to Income Tax and, in appropriate cases, to Surtax also.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is grossly offensive to a great section of the community that documents which are documents of State should be converted into biographies and used in newspaper articles for personal gain by former Ministers? Is it not a fact,

in view of what has taken place recently, that it is quite obvious they are being sold to the highest bidder, whether they are publishers in this country or not?

Mr. Speaker: There is an imputation there against an hon. Member, which I think the hon. Member should withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. McKinlay: I want to give hon. Members an opportunity to recover. If there is anything I have said that conveys the impression which apparently it has conveyed, I unreservedly withdraw it but I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the height of vulgarity that these things should be bandied about in the Press for gain?

Mr. Morrison: Of course, I am not quite sure what is being referred to though I could have a good and intelligent guess, but if it is the publication of certain speeches of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), they were not State documents.

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. I think I have tried to make the point clear. I was not referring to any particular person. I submit through "you, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising a question of vital principle affecting State documents in this country.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will see that is the difficulty we get into. If there is a particular document or a particular person concerned, and if my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I will do my best to answer it but, unless there is, we are arguing in the dark as to whether a document is a State document or not.

EMPIRE FOOD SUPPLIES

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the India Office, Burma Office, Colonial Office and other Departments concerned, to prevent famine among the many millions of citizens of the British Commonwealth and Empire in the East whose staple diet is rice, whose food supplies have already been diminished seriously and whose welfare is the concern of this House; and what substitute foods are to be provided for them instead of their normal diet.

Mr. H. Morrison: Along with other responsible authorities in the East, His Majesty's Government are taking all possible steps to overcome the difficulties arising from the world shortage of rice. So far as practicable within the rice-growing areas, efforts are being made to increase production and improve methods of collection. For example, teams of experts have been sent to Burma, Siam, Egypt and Brazil, and for Burma and Siam special supplies of consumption goods are being organised. But where crops have failed owing to prolonged drought, as in parts of India, little can be done along these lines, and elsewhere immediate results cannot be expected. In the areas where the staple diet is rice, local food production is being stimulated, and rationing and other arrangements extended to ensure effective distribution of available supplies.
As regards Europe, the Combined Food Board has agreed at the instance of His Majesty's Government that, except in special cases, no rice shall be provided during 1946.
Despite these and other measures, the rice available is certain to be far below needs. On behalf of the London Food Council, representations have been made to the Combined Food Board as to the need for additional supplies for the East. Up to the present, allocations have been made only for the first quarter of1946 and further decisions await more precise information as to the quantities of rice available. Since supplies of rice are woefully inadequate, some additional wheat has been secured to help to make up the deficiency and efforts are being made to obtain further supplies of cereals. In view of the present wheat situation, however, the quantities available are bound to be insufficient to meet needs.

Major Wyatt: Can my right hon. Friend say what active steps are being taking to procure rice for India from Siam, where there is reported to be a surplus, and what the results of those efforts have been?

Mr. Morrison: All possible steps are being taken to get rice from Siam and one of the purposes of this team of experts is to follow that matter up. We are very conscious of the needs of India and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentle-

man we are doing our best to meet the position.

Sir Frank Sanderson: May I ask whether the shipping of soya beans from Vladivostok to India is being considered to take the place of rice?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say. Vladivostok is a place that is not under the control of the British Government, but we will take note of the point.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Do the Government recognise that their responsibility for preventing famine in India is equal to their responsibility for preventing famine in this country?

Mr. Morrison: The problems are somewhat different. Of course we recognise the direct and particular responsibility to do the very best we can for India. I should not have thought there was any doubt in any quarter of the House about that.

HEARING AIDS (REPORT)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Lord President of the Council when the committee set up by the Medical Research Council two years ago, to investigate questions relating to the deaf, is likely to issue its report.

Mr. H. Morrison: The report of the Electro-Acoustics Committee on Hearing Aids is in course of preparation and it is hoped that publication may take place in the near future.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH

Dr. Stephen Taylor: asked the Lord President of the Council if the Government will establish a social research council on similar lines to the Medical Re search Council, in view of the difficulties under which social scientists have laboured in this country in the past.

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Clapham which is, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, examining the adequacy of the existing provision for research into economic and social questions, has given considerable attention


to this point, and 1 would prefer to wait and see any observations on it that may be made in their Report before reaching any conclusion.

GERMANY

Control Commission Staff (Religion)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why applicants for the post of legal assistants to the Control Commission in Germany are asked to state their religion on the official application forms for these posts; and whether he will take steps to eliminate this question from any application forms used by his Department in the future.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): All applicants for appointment with the British element of the Control Commission for Germany are asked to state their religion so that the military authorities in Germany can provide chaplaincy services as necessary. As the information is necessary for that purpose and is not used for any other, I can see no object in dispensing with it.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister publish a list of the religions in their order of priority so that the applicants may choose the one that is most likely to get them the job?

Nazi Appointments

Mr. Pritt: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he is aware that of some 70 schoolteachers in Duderstadt, who were shown by the Nazi party files to be Nazis and were accordingly recommended for removal, only two have so far been removed; that one of these two was replaced by a Nazi in the automatic arrest category; and whether he will clear up this situation before all the schoolchildren are made into Nazis;
(2) whether he is aware that within a week of the Duderstadt Town Council having been permitted to elect as mayor a social democrat of good standing and record the Military Government dismissed him and put in his place a Nazi factory owner who had made all his workmen join the Nazi party; and whether he will at once remove this Nazi and thus cure the unrest caused by this incident.

Mr. J. Hynd: Reports on the incidents referred to are being obtained from Germany and as soon as they are received I will communicate with the hon. and learned Member.

GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (PRIVATE PROPERTY)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to whom inquiries by refugees as to their properties, factories and machinery in Germany or Austria should be addressed; and what steps may such refugees take to obtain the removal of valuable machinery to this country.

Mr. J. Hynd: The nature and scope of the restitution and compensation which it may be possible to afford, from German and Austrian resources, to people in Germany and Austria, as well as refugees from those countries, who were dispossessed by the Nazis, is a matter for agreement between the occupying Powers. We shall shortly be putting proposals to our Allies and an announcement will be made if and when quadripartite agreement is reached. Meanwhile no good purpose would be served by addressing inquiries to London departments about individual cases.

Mr. P. Freeman: Might I ask if the result will be that some facilities will be granted to enable these refugees to go and inspect them or make some inquiries in the meantime?

Mr. Hynd: At the moment there are no such facilities. The number of people who are anxious to visit Germany, British, United Nations and ex-enemy nationals, for this purpose would tax the very small resources of the Control Commission beyond their present capacity.

EMPLOYMENT

Building Workers

Commander Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of men employed in the building industry in Cornwall on 1st January, 1946.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Building industry figures for Cornwall based on the annual exchange of U.I.


books are only available each July. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Minister of Works that it is not possible at present to give employment figures for any later date.

Mr. Stokes: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he is satisfied that unnecessary labour is not being used for the construction of an aerodrome in Cornwall that will not be used until the next war?

Captain Baird: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East, about the number of building trade workers employed by a certain factory in Wolverhampton; and will he release some of these workers for the municipal housing programme.

Mr. Isaacs: As soon as my inquiries are complete I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Baird: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises that, according to previous answers on this question, out of a total labour force in Wolverhampton of 2,000 men, only some 600 are employed in municipal building, and will he consider taking a census of the building industry in Wolverhampton with a view to finding out where the labour is going?

Mr. Isaacs: It is precisely because we are doing that that I ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the result of the inquiries.

Workers' Suspension, Wolverhampton

Captain Baird: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds were 80 men employed by Ever Ready, Perks Lane, Wolverhampton, suspended from work for one week.

Mr. Isaacs: My information is that 27 men, not 80, were suspended by the management for absenting themselves from work for half a day on the occasion of a football match. Only three days' suspension, in each case, were, I understand, without pay.

Captain Baird: While thanking the Minister for that reply, and while realising the seriousness of the crime at the present time, may I ask him if he considers whether the punishment really fitted the crime, since the result was that

work was held back for an even longer period? Would he not reconsider the whole question?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, I would like to point out that this firm suspended these men for a week without pay, and, on being told that it was a breach of the Essential Work Order, they gave the men three days' pay without their having to work for it.

Nursing and Domestic Service

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the shortage of nursing and domestic staff in public assistance institutions and emergency hospitals in Buckinghamshire; and what steps he proposes to take to overcome the deficiency.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the need of these hospitals for nursing and domestic staff. My officers are giving them all possible assistance in obtaining staff and have filled a number of vacancies during recent months. The shortage is part of a wider problem affecting many hospitals to which the various measures taken by the Government to encourage further recruitment into the hospital services are being directed.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: In doing what he can, will the right hon. Gentleman help by bringing into this country, if possible, foreign domestic assistance, because, in the case of Buckinghamshire, some 514 beds have had to be closed down owing to lack of staff, and something like 150 persons have gone in the last six months without replacement?

Mr. Isaacs: Unfortunately, that situation is much too common. The question of bringing in foreign domestic servants for this kind of job and for private domestic service is now under consideration.

Mr. Moyle: Is it not a fact that recruitment is handicapped by the policy of the authorities in their failure to pay reasonable rates of wages?

Mr. Isaacs: That may have been so in the past, but it is now very considerably overcome, because the authorities have established joint industrial councils and have agreed upon conditions which are much more satisfactory.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if he is now able to indicate his proposals for dealing with the problem of domestic service.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7th February to the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to announce that some definite scheme will be put into operation?

Mr. Isaacs: Not at the moment.

Directed Scottish Workers

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour whether any Scottish men and women who were directed to work in England during the war and whose original work there is now completed, are being redirected to further work in England; and whether, on such second direction, they are classed as English labour for all future purposes.

Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The second part does not therefore arise.

Mine Ballotees

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour how many young men conscripted for the Forces have served one, two, three or more sentences of imprisonment for refusing to work in the mines, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information cannot be obtained without detailed inquiry into the subsequent history of every man who has been sentenced to imprisonment for refusing to work in the mines.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour if it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to compel young men, conscripted for national service, to work in the mines.

Mr. Isaacs: Since the end of hostilities in Europe, young men becoming available for calling up have been sent to work in ':he mines only when they voluntarily choose such work as an alternative to service in the Forces. Young men who, before the end of hostilities in Europe, were sent com

pulsorily to the mines after selection by ballot must remain there until they are eligible for release on the basis described in my statement of the 29th November, 1945, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derby (Mr. H. White).

Mr. Hastings: Does the Minister realise what a bad thing it is for industry to have unwilling labour forced upon it?

Mr. Isaacs: That is a matter of opinion. I am not expressing mine.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. John Paton: asked the Minister of Labour how many adult workers, men and women, respectively, were registered as unemployed at Norwich labour exchange, at the latest convenient date; and how many of them had been continuously registered as unemployed for three weeks or longer.

Mr. Isaacs: At 14th January, the numbers of unemployed insured men and women aged 18 years and over, suitable for ordinary employment, on the registers of Norwich Employment Exchange were 463 and 75 respectively. The number of these who had been unemployed for more than three weeks is not known, but 285 men and 57 women had been on the register for more than two weeks.

DEMOBILISATION

Service Personnel (Civilian Employment)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether men on W.T. Reserve, employed in coalmines, will be permitted to obtain other employment when they cease to be liable for recall to the Armed Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 18th December last to the hon. Members for South Islington (Mr. Cluse) and Bewdley (Major Conant), a copy of which I am sending him.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister recognise that many of these men, before they volunteered for W.T. Reserve, were not coal miners and it is a great hardship on them still to be prevented from returning to their normal employment?

Mr. Isaacs: I would like the hon. Gentleman to look at the full replies.

Sir J. Mellon: Having looked at them many times—

Mr. Speaker: This is not yesterday. Today we are getting on with Questions.

Rural Trades

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Minister of Labour, if he will give consideration to the release of men in the Services with experience of rural trades, such as smithing, saddlery, thatching, etc., in Class B.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of nth February to the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe), a copy of which I am sending him.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Might I ask, once again, whether the Minister is aware of the amount of work, particularly repair work, which is waiting to be done in some village workshops, and whether he realises that it is a contribution they could make to our agricultural policy?

Mr. Isaacs: If my hon. and gallant Friend was also aware of the terms of the answer I have made, he would know he had complete satisfaction.

Individual Nominations(Class B)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that individual specialists and nominated men released in December under Class B amounted to less than one-sixth of those released under the block release method, he will take steps to improve the machinery for individual applications.

Mr. Isaacs: Selection for release in Class B by nomination is permitted only where the normal "block" release method would not enable the right men to be identified. It is, therefore, to be expected that the numbers released on nomination, whether individual specialists or not, should form only a small proportion of the total of Class B releases.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that that does not answer my Question? What objection can there be to giving the men greater scope to start their own businesses and to claim release in Class B on the ground that their services are important from the community point of view? Will the right hon. Gentleman

make an attempt to deal with men as human beings and not as digits?

Mr. Isaacs: It is most interesting to hear that from the other side of the House, and to be asked not to deal with men as digits. I have a firm recollection of men being referred to as "hands," and now we come to "digits." If the Noble Lord will look at the answer I have given, I think he will find that I have replied to the Question on the Order Paper.

Personal Case

Mr. John White: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds a Class B release was refused in the case of 1627737 L.A.C. T. G. Gill, urgently required to take up a managerial post in connection with food production, whose application was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Kent W.A.E.C. and the, N.F.U.

Mr. Isaacs: On the information given, it was not considered that this young man, who was only 19 when he joined the Forces, could be regarded as a key specialist whose services were personally indispensable for urgent and essential work of a managerial nature.

Mr. White: Is the Minister aware that this young man is needed in connection with the management of one of the biggest poultry breeding farms in the country, in order to release his father to give more time to national work in the poultry breeding industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that was taken fully into consideration, but we have to be careful that we do not create more unfairness by such releases.

Women

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Labour how many women released under Class B are now in the employment for which they were released.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of women released from the Services in Class B up to mid-January was 2,120. I understand that the great majority of these women have taken up the employment for which they were released except for those who are still taking their 21 days release leave.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the Minister aware that laundries complain that


these women are unobtainable, and in view of the growing tendency to wash so much dirty linen in public by the other side of the House—

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Rural Trades

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to expedite the release from the Forces under Class B of men who have experience of rural trades, such as smithing, saddlery, thatching of farm buildings, etc., as these men are urgently needed in rural districts for the repair and maintenance of farm machinery.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radcliffe) on 12th February, a copy of which I am sending him.

Progress

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that owing to the slowness of demobilisation, there are still men in the Forces who have served since 3rd September, 1939; and if he will guarantee that no man or woman of whatever rank or trade who have served since 3rd September, 1939, will have their release deferred.

Mr. Isaacs: I do not agree that demobilisation has been slow, but as the release scheme takes account of age as well as service, some of the younger men who have served since 3rd September, 1939 have not yet been released. I cannot give the assurance asked for in the second part of the Question.

Teachers

Major Symonds: asked the Minister of Labour why Class B releases are not made equally available to intending women teachers as they are to intending men teachers.

Mr. Isaacs: If the university training department or training college will submit to the Ministry of Education or Scottish Education Department as appropriate, the name of any woman who fulfils the conditions for release of partly trained male teachers, steps will be taken to secure her release provided that the university or training college concerned is able to admit her immediately on release.

MILITARY SERVICE

Apprentices and Students

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices and students taking scholarship examinations have been granted deferment of call up for military service on the ground of exceptional hardship; and how many applications have been refused during the past three months.

Mr. Isaacs: During the past three months 1,764 men were granted postponement of call-up by the local statutory authorities to complete their apprenticeship or to take scholarship and other important examinations, while 1,281 men were refused postponement during the same period.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that in some cases real hardship is being caused to apprentices and students by his refusal to allow even two months for them to take their final examinations?

Mr. Isaacs: All acceptances or refusals of applications for postponement are made with those considerations in mind.

Miners

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Labour how many miners are now serving in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of former underground coalminers now serving in H.M. Forces is estimated to be approximately 16,500. Release in Class B is offered to all underground coalminers in H.M. Forces nominated by the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

NATIONAL FINANCE

Northern Ireland (Imperial Contribution)

Dr. Little: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the sums paid from the money raised in Northern Ireland by the Imperial Government during the past year towards health, housing and education, respectively, in that State, which are much below the standard of the same services in Great Britain.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. The hon. Member should ask the Government of Northern Ireland, who are responsible for expenditure on these services.

Dr. Little: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider it would be an act of fair justice that, out of the balance of£34,500,000 paid last year to the Treasury, Northern Ireland should get a substantial amount to meet this charge?

Mr. Stokes: Might not all this difficulty be swept aside if a separate and independent election were held in Northern Ireland?

U.S. Loan (International Monetary Fund)

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to conserve our resources of hard currency for the payment of essential food imports, he will withhold payment of our gold subscription to the International Monetary Fund until he is sure of getting the U.S. loan.

Mr. Dalton: I made it clear, in my speech on the Anglo-American Loan Agreement on 12th December last, that if the loan does not go through we shall have to leave the Fund, and shall be entitled to get back what we have paid.

National Investment Council (Trade Union Representative)

Mr. Williamson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to announce the name of the trade union leader who has been invited to be a member of the National Investment Council.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. In have invited Mr. George Gibson, an ex-Chairman of the General Council of the T.U.C., General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees and Vice-Chairman of the National Savings Committee, to join the Council, and I am glad to say that he has accepted my invitation.

Gold and Dollar Expenditure (Armed Forces Abroad)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate monthly expenditure of gold and dollars on the maintenance of our Forces abroad; and what are the approximate amounts spent in Italy, Greece, the Middle East and Indonesia, respectively.

Mr. Dalton: It is difficult to estimate separately expenditure in gold and dollars and expenditure in other

currencies, and to distribute the total between different theatres. But the estimated average monthly total of military expenditure overseas during 1946 is approximately£25 millions.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nearly half a million dollars were recently seized in Poland on the persons of agents of General Anders' Army bearing British Army identity cards, and is it not. a fact that these dollars originally came from the Treasury and were paid out to General Anders' Army?

Mr. Dalton: I could not say.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (ACCOMMODATION)

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the number of students taking a science degree in physiology is seriously restricted because of present limited facilities of the medical faculty of University College, London; and what steps he is taking to secure the release of all the buildings of that university for their proper purpose.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I understand that alternative accommodation has been secured and that as soon as repairs and adaptations have been carried out, University College will be vacated.

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Ministers of Religion

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Minister of National Insurance (I) what is the position of ministers of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational and Baptist churches, respectively, under the National Insurance Bill; and by whom the employer's contribution in respect of them is to be paid in each case;
(2) What is the position of clergy of the Church of England under the National Insurance Bill; and by whom the employer's contribution in respect of them is to be paid.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I am advised that ministers of religion as such are not in


general employed under contract of service. In so far as they are gainfully occupied, therefore, they would normally fall to be dealt with as self-employed persons. In some circumstances they may be employed persons, as for example, where they are employed on the teaching staff of a school, and employed persons' contributions would then be payable in respect of them by their employers.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister further elaborate that in so far as they are gainfully employed?

Self-Employed Persons

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many self-employed persons are at present voluntary contributors to existing health and pensions insurance; and what proportion this number bears to the total of self-employed persons in this country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There are about one million voluntary contributors who may be people who have retired, or whose remuneration has passed over the£420 limit, or who have taken up work on their own account. It would not be possible to give the particulars asked for without detailed inquiry of voluntary contributors themselves.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (AVAILABILITY)

Dr. Stephen Taylor: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he will take further steps to overcome the difficulties which retail booksellers are still experiencing in obtaining supplies of Bills, White Papers and other H.M.S.O. publications, particularly in view of the interest which the public is showing in these publications.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will look further into the matter.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (PUNISHMENT)

Mr. P. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the amendment of the punishment allowed to be inflicted on very young children by the order of a magistrate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): If my hon. Friend will kindly send me particulars of the way in which he thinks the present law needs amendment, I will see that his suggestions receive careful consideration.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent case in which a child of nine was ordered punishment by the magistrate, and does he consider such punishment reasonable?

Mr. Ede: There is a Question on this point on the Order Paper today.

UNLICENSED FIREARMS (SURRENDER)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Austin.: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider an appeal to the public for the surrender of all unlicensed firearms, such surrender to be made on a basis of no penalty for improper possession.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Ede: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer Question No. 98.
I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the serious risks to the public arising from the existence of large numbers of firearms and quantities of ammunition which there is reason to believe are being held without firearm certificates issued by the police. It is an offence punishable by heavy penalties to hold a firearm or ammunition without a firearm certificate.
With a view to reducing this risk and providing an opportunity for the surrender of firearms or ammunition which are unlawfully held, I have asked chief officers of police in England and Wales, with whom the enforcement of the Firearms Act, 1937, rests, to arrange that proceedings are not taken against anyone who surrenders firearms or ammunition so held by 31st March. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has agreed that proceedings will not be taken in Scotland against anyone who surrenders by that date firearms or ammunition unlawfully held.
The Government appeal to all concerned to take advantage of this arrangement and so help to put an end to a situation which has already resulted in a number of tragic accidents. Firearms and ammunition may be handed in at any police station.

Mr. Austin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his long answer, may I ask whether he will give the greatest possible publicity to this statement in the Press, through the cinema and over the radio?

Mr. Ede: I have already had a Press conference on this matter with, I think, quite satisfactory results, judging by the information that has been given. A statement will be made on the radio this evening, and I will consider whether there are other means of giving publicity to this statement which we regard as being of urgent importance.

Mr. McGovern: As a considerable number of people are in possession of firearms which have been stolen, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the firearms are handed in, any inquiries will be made and proceedings taken against the people in unlawful possession?

Mr. Ede: If anyone will hand in firearms, the promise is that no proceedings will be taken.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Will this concession cover people who wish to keep firearms which they illegally hold if they license them?

Mr. Ede: If a person desires to hold a firearm, he has to prove that he has some special ground for having it, and this cannot be regarded as an opportunity for people to cover up past delinquencies by getting a firearm certificate for the future.

Sir J. Mellor: To avoid any possible confusion, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that that does not apply to shot-guns?

Mr. Ede: It does not apply to smooth bore rifles of a barrel length greater than 20inches.

Mr. Garry Allighan: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing more severe penalties than exist at present for the un-lawful possession of firearms, after 31st March?

Mr. Ede: I think the penalties are quite clear, and people who run the risk of keeping firearms after 31st March must take the consequences.

PERSIA (BRITISH TROOPS, WITHDRAWAL)

Mr. Eden: (By Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British troops, if any, have recently been sent to Tehran; and Whether it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to withdraw all British troops from Persia by the agreed date.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The answer to the first part of the Question is "None." In reply to the second part of the Question, orders have been given for all British troops to be withdrawn from Persia by 2nd March, 1946, in accordance with our obligations under the Treaty of 1942.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. C. S. Taylor: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that in the Official Report of 12th February this year, in column 342, there is a speech attributed to myself which 1 did not make? Although one does not mind being responsible for one's own speeches, one hesitates to accept responsibility for those of other hon. Members, and may I ask that this mistake may be corrected in the next HANSARD?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us about the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday and Tuesday, 18th and 19th February—Report stage of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill. I may say that a White Paper explaining the principal Amendments to be moved by the Government which relate to death benefits will be available in the Vote Office this evening.

Wednesday and Thursday, 20th and 21st February—A Debate on Foreign Affairs and Palestine will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday, 22nd February—Third Reading of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill.

During the week we shall ask the House to take Motions to approve the Double Taxation Relief Orders and the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1946.

Mr. Eden: With regard to the Debate on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday and Thursday, has the Leader of the House any proposals in his mind to canalise that Debate as between Foreign Affairs and Palestine? I think the House would feel a little unhappy if the two were muddled together, and if the time were divided, in any proportion thought fit, it would perhaps be a better arrangement.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have understood all along that the House wishes these two subjects to be divided if possible. Therefore, the arrangement which I hope will commend itself to the House—taking the view of what I think is the right proportion between the general Debate on Foreign Affairs, which must be extensive, and Palestine, which is somewhat more limited—is that the general Debate on Foreign Affairs, without prejudice possibly to whatever may be said in the opening speech for the Government on the general issue, should be on Wednesday and on Thursday up to 6.30 p.m., and that we should suspend the Rule for an hour on Thursday so that, therefore, the Debate on Palestine could proceed from 6.30 until 10.15 on Thursday.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could the Leader of the House indicate if tomorrow's Debate on agriculture and the Government statement will refer to the United Kingdom agricultural policy, and. if so, in view of the peculiar conditions involved, whether a Scottish Minister will take part in the Debate?

Mr. Morrison: Naturally we would wish to meet the convenience of the House, but the arrangement was that the Minister of Agriculture would open the Debate and the Parliamentary Secretary would conclude. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise that question in the appropriate quarter, and we will see, if it is necessary, whether an adjustment can be made, but, as preparations have been made on the basis which I have

indicated, they may be a little difficult to adjust.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is because representations have been made and have not succeeded, that I deliberately put the question to him publicly this afternoon? Can we have an assurance that since Scottish agriculture is involved, a Scottish Minister will take part in the Debate?

Mr. Morrison: It depends on what is convenient to the House and to the Ministers. If it means a third Ministerial speech I do not think the House would be very pleased. It just depends on whether it would be right in the first place, and whether it would be convenient in the second place, to switch one of the English Ministers and to replace him by a Scottish Minister. We will see.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Reverting to the Debate next week on Palestine, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most of us consider that, in the circumstances as they have now developed, the suggestion he has made is an admirable one and amply fulfils the pledge he gave? May I at the same time ask him whether it is intended that there shall be a separate reply on the Palestine Debate at the end of the day? Will the general Foreign Affairs Debate be summed up or be replied to by the Minister before 6.30, and will there then be a separate Governmental answer on Palestine?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly do my best to meet that reasonable request, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is, on the whole, satisfied with the arrangements proposed.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will take the Civil Aviation Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say.

Mr. McAllister: Would the Leader of the House give an assurance that, in view of the growing concern at the failure of the Government's policy on town and country planning and the location of industry, and the danger of their being swamped by the Government's very praiseworthy housing programme, he will find facilities for a Debate on that subject?

Mr. Morrison: That can easily be provided for by the House itself by taking a Supply Day on that subject. The only trouble is that 1 am afraid it might get into the field of legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, there was a statement in the King's Speech to the effect that there would be legislation on the subject this Session. I still hope there will be.

Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when we are to have a Debate on forest policy?

Mr. Morrison: The idea was that that would be one of the subjects for one of the Supply Days which are now not very far off.

Mr. Stokes: Reverting to the question of the Debate on Foreign Affairs next week, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we are to understand from what he said with regard to that section of the Debate which will refer to Palestine, that the Government's reference to Palestine policy will be contained in the Foreign Secretary's opening statement, and that there will not be an additional Front Bench speech? Otherwise it will shut everybody out.

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure about that, but we will certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Colonel Ropner: Are we to understand that forestry will be excluded altogether from the statement on agriculture which will be made tomorrow?

Mr. Morrison: I understood that the Government's statement would be in relation to the declaration on long-term agricultural policy that was made by the Minister of Agriculture. The Debate will be on a Motion to approve that statement. It will be a question for Mr. Speaker to decide, but I would have thought it would be bound to be confined to the pronouncement by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have been pressing successive Governments for years to have full day's Debate on forestry, and we hope we shall get it?

Mr. Morrison: It is still a free country, and it is not for me to teach the father of the House the rules of Parliamentary Business, but he has only to persuade

his Whips to find a Supply Day on which forestry can be debated, and he is well away.

Mr. Eden: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair. When this Business was rearranged we did forgo a second agricultural day and it was understood that some opportunity— naturally when it could be fitted in—for a second day would be given for the discussion of forestry.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, that is true. 1 understood, and was very glad to understand, that a second opportunity might be given in relation to a Supply Day. What are Supply Days for if they are not to discuss things of this kind. That is eminently what they are for, and I do not think it is unreasonable to say that forestry might be discussed on a Supply Day.

Mr. Eden: That is all right if the right hon. Gentleman realises it is impossible to discuss forestry in the light of the proposals of the Government without discussing legislation, which cannot be discussed on a Supply Day.

Mr. Morrison: Even that difficulty can be got over without prejudice to that principle. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would see that a consultation takes place through the usual channels and we, as ever, will do our best to meet his convenience.

Mr. Driberg: With regard to the Foreign Affairs Debate, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last Foreign Affairs Debate there was practically no mention of the Far East? There was one speech on Japan, and five, I think, on Jugoslavia. Would it be convenient to consider allocating a few hours ' of one of the two days to discuss the Far East?

Mr. Morrison: I think we have gone as far as we dare in the direction of regionalisation. If we start carving the world up in relation to Departments of the Foreign Office in this Debate we shall get into difficulties.

Major Tufton Beamish: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to set aside a day for the postwar code of pay, allowances, Service pensions and gratuities of members of the Forces? The White Paper on this matter was issued


some eight or nine weeks ago. This is a most important subject of great interest to a large number of men

Mr. Morrison: The White Paper has been published some time and I have not gathered that there has been any widespread unhappiness about it. I must be careful about accepting the view that if the Government publish a White Paper there is to be a Debate. The net result of that would be that there would be no more White Papers, if we are not careful. There will be a Debate on defence policy, which is being discussed, and the matter could come into that Debate.

Mr. Chamberlain: Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether dates have been fixed for the Second Reading of the two new Housing Bills?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. They have not actually been fixed but they will not be long.

Mr. De la Bère: Are there two new houses?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Reverting for a moment to the question of the Debate on agriculture tomorrow from the point of view of Scotland, I think the answer of the Minister is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I think we are entitled to have the Minister for Scotland replying in connection with Scottish agriculture. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will re

consider that. I think it is our right, not a matter of convenience.

Mr. Morrison: I will see what I can do about it. Scottish Members must be a little quicker in the uptake about this. It was announced some little time ago, and this is the first I have heard about it.

Earl Winterton: Last week.

Mr. Morrison: I know, but it really is not so easy when pressure is brought the day before. If I had known before it would have been easier.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We did it before.

Mr. Morrison: There will no doubt be Debates on Scottish agriculture. I will look into the matter, and naturally if it is possible at this late stage to meet the wishes of Scottish Members I will do so.

Major Cecil Poole: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if we are to have Ministers making opening and closing speeches for every country in the British Isles back benchers will never have a chance of making a speech?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL,

" to make further provision as to the appointment of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for One hour after a quarter past Nine o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whitely.]

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I should like to assure the House and the Government at the outset of the remarks I want to make, that we on this side of the House understand very well that this Debate raises issues of the gravest national and international consequence. It is, therefore, in no spirit of partisanship that we approach this question this afternoon. At the same time, we have certain questions to ask, we have certain criticisms to make, we have certain suggestions to put forward, and I think it my duty to voice those at the outset of the Debate, so that Ministers may have the fullest opportunity to reply. I do not think any Member, wherever he or she may sit in the House, will dispute that the two statements made last week by the Minister of Food and his colleague the Minister of Agriculture caused the gravest concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and outside in the country also. I am bound to say I think that concern was, in a considerable measure, the fault of the Government themselves. I want to tell them as clearly as I can, why I think so.
It does not seem to us that the Government took the proper steps to inform and

warn the House and the country of what was impending. On the contrary, until the Government statements were made last week—certainly for those of us who had no inside information, and I know it is difficult for the Government to understand that those who have not inside information do not always see things as the Government do, because I have been a member of a Government myself—sofar as I am concerned, and I think as far as hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned, the general trend of Government pronouncements, admittedly against a dark background, had seemed to us to be, on the whole, reassuring. Of course, we knew that the overall position was anxious and difficult, but I must remind the Government of their own recent statements, if only to explain to them why what they said came to us, and to others, as a shock. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food before he left for Washington made a statement which was quoted in "The Times." He said:
 During 1946 I shall continue to do my utmost to provide more variety in our diet. We can look forward to some improvements at any rate.
On his return from Washington he certainly said nothing that I have seen to give any contrary impression. Moreover, the Prime Minister in a letter—if I may say so, an admirable letter in the circumstances—to Mr. Gollancz, which he may remember was written on the day after the Minister of Food returned from Washington, said this, on 25th January, less than three weeks ago:
 On the basis of what is practicable, however, there is little prospect of any substantial increase in the level of human consumption while world supplies are short, as they are now. This does not mean, however, that the Government are ready to undertake that in no circumstances will there be any general increase of rations. It may be found necessary to provide some variation of the present monotonous and unexciting diet in order to secure increased production at home, and thereby build up the export trade on which our future depends.
Very sound, wise sentiments, but there is not the slightest indication in that statement that further important and substantial cuts of existing rations were at that time impending. I do not want to overdraw the picture, I only want to show the right hon. Gentleman how it struck us. I am suggesting that that statement by the right hon. Gentleman, while it certainly did not foretell any improvement, at the same time did not prepare


anybody for the reduction which came so shortly afterwards. So I would say to the Lord President of the Council, that I do not think there was any justification at all for the attack he was good enough to make upon us on this side of the House, at Peckham the other night, when he said that we ought to contribute constructive suggestions in these difficult times—I think I have got it right—" constructive suggestions to a solution of the food problem." How in the world are we supposed to do that, if Ministers do not take us into their confidence, or even take the trouble to tell us that there is an acute problem impending?

Mr. Stokes: Another secret agreement.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is on that again. 1 should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would have perceived that there is a difference between revealing a military agreement at the expense of your Ally, which would betray your Ally to the enemy, and telling the public what is happening about dried eggs.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. He knows perfectly well that the treaties to which I referred and which he denied, were secret agreements which had nothing whatever to do with military arrangements. They were purely political, and he knows it

Mr. Eden: I am very sorry, I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, I was merely taking the Question he asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday, which was about that. If he will look at his own Question on yesterday's Paper, he will see that it was about the Far Eastern agreement. If he does not mean that, all right, but then what does he mean? In any event, I say that an agreement of that kind is not comparable with telling the country what their domestic food provision is.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman deceived the country.

Mr. Eden: I am quite ready to meet that charge at any time.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity yesterday, but did not.

Mr. Eden: I am not a Minister of the Crown. The hon. Member has done his best to see to that, and he really must not complain.
Perhaps I may now go back to the food question. When the two right hon. Gentlemen made that statement, I consulted at once with Lord Woolton and one or two others of our colleagues, who have been closely concerned with this business for a very long period, and I found that none of them had any information at all of the situation which was about to develop. I do not want to embarrass the Government in any way, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but it is a fact that, from time to time, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are good enough to consult those of us who have had some experience of office in these war years, about the problems which are arising. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food that I hope he will take this as a friendly tip—if I were in his place, having such a predecessor as Lord Woolton, I would get a bit of advice on the quiet from him. At any rate, I simply say to the Leader of the House that I do not think it is right, or worthy of him, to complain that we do not make constructive suggestions, when he does not give us any information on which to base those suggestions. Despite that provocation, however, I promise not to go further down that road.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): That was not a speech of provocation at all, it was a consequence of provocation.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is a pretty good master of provocation. I leave him to settle with his own conscience whether he started it or not. I am not going any further along that way; on the contrary.
I want to put to the Government a number of questions which are, I think, judging from my letter bag, the kind of questions which the country is asking itself now. I also want to make certain suggestions of a constructive nature, which 1 hope the Government may be able to take to meet a situation which is gravely troubling us all. We must, none of us, underrate the seriousness of this position for the British people, especially for the women of this country. Our people have


endured six long years of rationing—and in that, let me add, they differ from the people of some countries in Europe, notably Germany, which, so far as my information goes, until the very hour of victory, lived very well on the spoils of the conquered territories. Now, at the end of this long time, our people have been called upon to make further sacrifices.
The first question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is Whether, in fact, the Government have paid the close and constant attention to the developing world food situation which that situation clearly demanded. Have Ministers, individually and collectively, made the decisions and taken all the steps that were necessary, and above all, did they take those steps soon enough? Are they now doing all that is humanly possible to alleviate the situation? Of course, we do not blame. the Government for crop failures in far-distant lands, we do not blame them for the bad weather that affects the whaling fleet, but we do say that it was the duty of the Government, as those disasters and difficulties became known, to take urgent steps to meet them, and to apprise this House and the general public of their implications upon the rations available for the British people.
The Minister of Food told the House last week, quite rightly, about crop failures in Australia, in the Argentine, and in North Africa. I would like him to tell us today how long he has known about those failures. Was it not months ago? He knew of them in fact before Christmas, by his own admission in this House in his statement last Tuesday. He then added the further news of crop failures in India and South Africa, which he said did not arrive until he got back from Washington. He said it was not until a few weeks ago that it was possible to assess fully the effect of all those disasters on the world food position. All right, we accept that, but was it really necessary to wait for precise knowledge of the full facts of all those calamities before any action could be put in train, or any information or warning issued to the country as a whole? Was it not apparent long since to the Government, with their information—so much greater than ours—that something of this nature was going to

arise, even if they could not give the exact figure?
Let us take the position of India—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, the failure of the South West monsoon in India in the late summer and autumn was followed in October by a disastrous cyclone in the Province of Madras; and then on top of that came a failure of the Christmas rains in Northern India. But long before that, it must have been apparent that serious shortages were inevitably going to arise in India. The major part of that damage was done by last autumn, and by November I am told, though I do not now whether it is right or not, it was known in India, in the grain trade, that disaster had overtaken the crops for this year—a disaster, it is quite true, whose magnitude could not finally be ascertained until the failure of the Christmas rains, but it must have been visible many weeks before that. Now I come to why we have, if you like, misunderstood the situation. On 10th December last a Question was asked about the position in India—I was in the House at the time—by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), who referred to the failure of these very rains about which we now hear so much. He asked about them, and he was told by the Under-Secretary of State for India that the Government of this country:
 sees no cause for apprehension of famine, whether in Bengal or elsewhere in India."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1946; Vol. 417, c. 26.]
I simply cannot understand that answer, in relation to what has happened since.
Now about South Africa. South Africa is a grain-importing country, but I doubt whether her requirements today are large enough to make a difference to the total world demand. But I should like to know what those South African requirements are. For instance, there has been a widespread drought in that country, following the failure of the rains last year, and I should like to ask the Minister if he can tell us when it was that the Union Government's appreciation of the crop position foreshadowed a shortage. Again, I do not ask for exact figures, but for a reasonable estimate of the likely size of the deficit now impending there. We must see the overall position.
I turn to the various items of food that are affected. First, and most important,


of course, are food grains. On this subject I should like to ask the Government two questions. First, what steps have they taken to increase production at home; and, secondly, what steps have they taken to increase imports from overseas producing countries? About the position at home, surely, it must have been evident to the Government from what they have now told us, that these failures of grain crops throughout the world were piling up. That must have been evident to them months ago from what they now tell us, and even if full details of the position were not known until the beginning of the year, at any rate, it was apparent to the Government before Christmas, I think, that there must be a substantial deficit on the world's wheat account. There is no dispute on that. If that was so, surely it was then the duty of the Government to take all possible steps to increase at that time the production of food grains in this country. Did they do it? On Tuesday— I ask the House to note this—on Tuesday of last week the Minister of Agriculture said that he had that day despatched a letter to the county committees. Why on that day? Why not weeks before? We are now told that the storm had been gathering for months.

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister of Agriculture?

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): My right hon. Friend is to speak in tomorrow's Debate.

Mr. Eden: With all respect, he is very much interested today, too. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to appear himself whenever he can. I am not making a complaint. I want to put these issues, and so long as they are replied to by somebody—and I must ask for some reply—I make no complaint.
I go back to the domestic food position, and what we are doing here. Why was action left so late? It is quite true that the Coalition Government decided early last year that compulsory directions would not be issued to farmers to sow wheat this season. I remember very well that decision being taken. That was at a time when, by general admission, the present world wheat shortage was not foreseen. I do not think there is any dispute on that. That was early last year. Yet, on 5th December—I ask the House to note that date, and how near

it is to the present time, when we are now told the storm clouds were gathering and that we ought to have seen them—on that date, the Minister of Agriculture told the farmers that it was not the intention of the Government to issue such compulsory directions. It is only now, at the last moment, now when it can only be done at great inconvenience, with considerable loss of efficiency, that he appeals to farmers to sow the maximum acreage of Spring wheat this year. And even now he has not issued directions, neither has he restored the acreage payment. We are entitled to ask the Government for some explanation of this strange state of affairs. If it was known by Christmas that the wheat shortage would be so serious this year, why did not the Minister of Agriculture then make his appeal to the farmers, and tell the country at the same time what the position was?
I come to the question of labour. It is only too well known that agricultural labour is sadly short. In answer to a Question of mine on Wednesday last week, the Prime Minister said that the Government had decided to defer the call-up—mark you, Mr. Speaker, it had been announced only in January after this cloud was gathering—of 8,000 agricultural workers until after the 1946 harvest. Why was that decision not taken weeks ago? I am bound to point out to the Government that on the very day before the Prime Minister made his statement announcing this deferment of the call-up, the Minister of Labour had given an entirely contradictory answer in this House. A few hours after the announcement of the position in this House, and after the public reaction, the Government's policy was changed. Surely, this shows not only a lack of foresight, but also a lack of coordination between Government Departments, and a lack of timely action.
I pass now to the question of imports. Are the Government satisfied that they have now explored every possible source of food grain imports? We all know that the most serious effect of the raising of the extraction rate, which the Government now, as I think, rightly propose in the circumstances—it might have been proposed long ago when this situation was arising; I am coming to that in a minute—isloss of feeding stuffs for pigs and poultry. What action are the Government taking


to find alternatives? May I here make a suggestion which may or may not be of value? What are they doing about maize which, I understand, will shortly be available in considerable quantities in South America, particularly in the Argentine? I know from previous discussions which we have had on this matter, that the difficulty in the past of obtaining that maize has been, in part, shortage of shipping for the long run to the Plate, and, in part, because the United States were unwilling to supply the Argentine with the fuel oil for the railways to enable the maize to be moved. I understand, however, that that problem was resolved some time ago, and my impression is that the particular problem of fuel was resolved as long ago as last May. There are, I understand, to be supplies available in about two months' time. Are the Government taking any steps to secure some portion of that valuable crop for this country, as a most useful substitute, and if they are not, will they tell us the reasons why that cannot be done?
Finally, on the question of wheat, I would say a word about consumption. Here, I would ask the Government why the steps which they are now taking were not taken long before. Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite remember very well that, during the war and during the height of the U-boat menace, Lord Woolton and his successor raised the rate of extraction always to safeguard against a dangerous fall in the levels of our stocks. In other words, that step was taken well in advance, and Lord Woolton always kept his picture a certain period ahead. I think that it is true to say that never, even at the worst period of the U-boat menace, did we allow our reserves of wheat and flour to fall below something in excess of three months' supply. That was because my noble friend, who is a real master of this subject, always budgeted three months in advance.

Mr. McAllister: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his laudatory references to Lord Woolton as a master of this subject of food, recollects that Lord Woolton persistently and continuously, throughout his term of office as Minister of Food, resisted the raising of the extraction rate of wheat, per

sistently defended a white bread policy and the introduction of synthetic vitamins. He even abandoned the synthetic plan which would have been of great value during the war and now to the nation. [Hon. Members: "Speech."] The public's objection to all wheat bread was entirely due to the fact that Lord Woolton would not stand by a decent bread nutrition policy.

Mr. Eden: I do not think that the hon Gentleman is correct in his statement. Certainly, the rate of extraction was raised during Lord Woolton's time. I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing this with Lord Woolton's known dislike of bread rationing. I have often heard him express his view on that. I am not trying to make out a case for Lord Woolton; I am merely pointing out that this practice was pursued of taking steps in advance of the time. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman has not done that. I do not know. I am not a Member of the Government, but I say that the impression given to the public is that he has not done so. Not until we have come up against a crisis apparently has he taken the steps that Lord Woolton was careful to take in advance of the event. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman has an explanation of that he will, no doubt, give it to us. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessors at the Ministry of Food always made it part of their policy to keep the public fully informed on the food situation and to ask for their co-operation at the earliest moment. Yet, it is only now, at this late date, that the public are given the facts about the wheat situation, and an appeal is made to them to save bread. Why could not they have been told before and that appeal made before? There have, it is true, been references—I want to be fair about this—to world shortages, but in statements which responsible Ministers made up to the last moment there was nothing whatever to warn the public of the imminence of this grave situation.
I want to say a word on the question of fats The cut in the fat ration from eight to seven ounces, I regard as one of the most serious features of this whole unhappy situation. It is a grave threat to our standard of living, and to the health of our already overstrained population. I do not want to refer to Lord Woolton again, in view of the intervention


made just now, but, perhaps, I may say that my colleagues of the late Government will remember the number of occasions on which we were advised of the capital importance of maintaining the level of this fat ration. I ask the Government what alternative they have in mind and what alternative sources they have examined.
May I tell the right hon. Gentleman— he will correct me if I am wrong—my impression of what the position was recently? When Lord Llewellin examined the oils and fats position in conjunction with the United States last spring in Washington, it was apparent then, that there would not be sufficient edible oils and fats available to us in this country to maintain the eight ounce ration rate through the winter, and the following summer until June, 1946. That became evident last spring. I was in Washington at the time and my Noble Friend told me about the position. What did we do? Lord Llewellin decided, with the approval of the Coalition Cabinet, that a cut had to be made, and that it would be made during the warm summer months; and so, in May, 1945—not a very happy date for us, the "Caretaker" Government, just before the General Election—Lord Llewellin cut the ration from eight ounces to seven. While I have no desire to introduce a purely party political note into this Debate, I think that I must observe that he thereby no doubt contributed in large measure to his own defeat in his own constituency. I ask hon. Gentlemen to ask themselves how many of them referred to cuts in the food ration in their election speeches.

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: In view of the reference which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I would like to correct his impression. In the course of that election campaign, in which I, as it happened, opposed the noble Lord mentioned, not one mention of the food rationing system was made by me, and so far as I am aware. no vote was cast for me because of the food position.

Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not take that too much to heart. I was making no charge against him. All I say is, that it is a remarkable fact if this cut was not noticed by a single elector in his constituency—

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: There were many other important factors at that. election besides the cut in food.

Mr. Eden: Whatever the consequences of the cut, the reason for it I would remind the House was to reduce the rations during the summer months in order that the ration might be restored to 8 0zs. in the winter days and to maintain the 8 0zs. until the end of June, 1946. The ration was restored and rightly restored, but now it is cut again to 7 0zs., and we have still some of the worst, and maybe some of the coldest and wettest months of the year ahead of us. The main reason that the Minister of Food gave for the cut in fat ration is the retention by the Government of India of a substantial quantity of ground nuts consequent on the failure of the crop in India. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this. My impression was that at that time, to get over the later restoration, Lord Llewellin made a bargain with the Government of India to exchange a substantial tonnage of wheat for the ground nuts which India was to supply to us to maintain our fat ration. I want to know, if there was such an arrangement, what happened to it. Was the wheat not delivered, and if it was not delivered why not? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for an immediate reply, but I think if he makes an investigation in his Department, he will find that that is the position. I do ask the Government, most earnestly, to give the utmost thought to this problem of restoring the fat ration. No one can blame the Government, and no one seeks to blame them for a natural disaster, but it is our duty to demand from them the fullest possible account of the measures they have taken to find an alternative.
I wish to deal briefly now with the question of dried egg. The Minister of Food has explained that the reason for stopping the supply of dried egg was the shortage of dollars. It was a decision which, as he told us, was taken immediately after the ending of Lend-Lease; taken, in fact, in the Autumn of last year. Although this decision was taken many months ago, and although the Minister and the Cabinet presumably have known for some time that the supply of dried egg would cease in the first months of 1946, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing whatever to tell the public. Why did he conceal this information? Why was the public not told? Why were the housewives not given an opportunity of expressing their opinion to the Government


before they were presented with a fait accompli? We are told that the problem was shortage of dollars, and yet, at that time, we continued to spend dollars on American films and tobacco and are still doing so. The Government may tell us that the reason for the cut in dried egg is that fresh eggs are to be given—or perhaps I ought to say shell eggs. If that is so, should they not have explained that to the people long before this decision was taken? I shall be glad to hear, of course, the explanation, but I would say to the Government that this is a very small additional supply of shell egg. After all, if my arithmetic is correct, it is only 14 eggs extra per person per four months. If that is right, I must say it would never replace dried egg, and for those purposes for which dried egg is used it is quite inadequate. Moreover, are the Government still absolutely certain that they will be able to maintain the supply even of this small additional quantity of shell eggs? We would like to be reassured on this point, because, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so we have had one or two disappointments in the past.
I have put to the Government a number of questions. I want to make to them another appeal, to end all this secrecy.

Mr. Stokes: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: I see I get support from the hon. Gentleman. I know how natural it is for all Government Departments to keep as much information as they possibly can to themselves. They think, "The more we tell, the more Questions our Minister is going to be asked in the House, and the more trouble we shall have. We are already overworked so let us keep it to ourselves as much as we can." It is a perfectly natural temptation, but it is also, especially in a subject of this kind, a very grave error, because the more you conceal, the more angry eventually the people are when they find out their position. I must remind the Government in that connection, to give one example, that the details of our stocks were last given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in March while we were still at war with Germany and Japan Since then, the figures were not given until the other day, when they were

accompanied by the double shock presented to the House by the two Ministers. I know appeals were made by several Members in this House for more information, and surely it is clear that it would have been wise to give that information. We all admit there may be good reason or what seems to us good reason for secrecy sometimes in wartime, but there is absolutely no reason for secrecy here as far as I can see. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not at all impressed by his argument that he could not reveal the position of our stocks because he was trying to buy in a sellers' market? I think it is pretty clear that the sellers knew all about it. The only people who did not know were the people in this House and in this country. They were placed at a disadvantage, but I should like very much to see any evidence of any advantage the right hon. Gentleman obtained by that.
In conclusion I say this to the Government. I am afraid we are by no means at the end of our troubles in these matters. What I would urge the Government to do, is to tell the people the truth, and keep on telling them the truth. Above all I say, Do please try to warn them well in advance of what is coming. Our people have had many hardships to bear. The announcement last week of these further hardships reveals that unhappily far from our troubles being at an end, they are going to be increased. The least the Government can do, and the least the Government must do, is to take our people into their confidence so long as the responsibility rests with them. If they do so and keep the House informed— for they have not kept the House informed—1 can tell them with all sincerity we will do all we can, in a joint effort, to meet what we know is, if not a desperate, at least a very serious national need. We believe in and wish for nothing else but such an effort.

4.19 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): From the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman it is obvious that a good deal of the information which he has addressed to the House today has been culled from speeches I have made in this House. I welcome the opportunity which this Debate affords me of giving the House a detailed exposition of the serious food problems in this country and of the world I know of no fairer tribunal than the


House of Commons, and I am confident that the House will hear me and give me a full opportunity to state my case. I particularly welcome this Debate, as it affords me an opportunity to rebut the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the Opposition has just made, namely, that this House has been left in the dark. If that were true, the House would have good cause for complaint, but, as I hope to show, that statement was not only untrue, but was unfair
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that my predecessor was always careful to keep the public in his confidence on food matters. But I would remind the House that both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Woolton frequently found it necessary to maintain a discreet silence, not only from the point of view of denying information to the enemy, but also of avoiding discussion when delicate negotiations regarding food supplies were in progress. The first of these causes, fortunately, no longer exists, and so far as this Government is concerned the second applies with even greater force than it did to my predecessor. For all varieties of food—and I repeat it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite—for all varieties of food, we are now on a sellers' market, and he knows, and any business man knows, that were I to reveal stocks, as I have been requested to do, it would afford a great opportunity to gentlemen to raise prices against this House. It is a sad commentary that such a thing could happen, in a world in which many countries are suffering from semi-starvation, a sad commentary on what has to be done on the altar of profit.
The difficulty during the terms of office of my predecessors was to find ships to carry the food. Moreover—and this is important—we were getting a substantial part of our food on Lend-Lease, and the dollar question did not arise. If it. was found necessary, in the past, to be discreet how much more must I be discreet now? I cannot undertake to conduct delicate negotiations, which are necessary to procure our national food supplies, in the full glare of publicity.
Here I think I might remind the House that this country has not the last word in the disposal of world food supplies. We are only one of many claimants. There is an international machine for planning the allocation of all the main foods among

the nations of the world, namely, the Combined Food Board, which was set up in 1942 by the Governments of this country, the United States of America and Canada. That Board has since been extended to include on its commodity committees, most of the main producing and consuming countries. It is the duty of this organisation to take stock of the total supply and requirement position for the foods with which hit deals, and to recommend to the Governments concerned the allocation between the various claimant countries. This country, as a party to the Combined Food Board, has to present its demands and make out its case in support of those demands. But the final recommendation as to each country's share, is made by the Board, and we as parties to it, must abide by its decision. It is either this system of planned distribution or a wild scramble for supplies, with prices soaring and no security of supply for every one.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a number of occasions during recent months in which I, or other Members of the Government, have called the attention of the House to the food situation that was developing, particularly as regards wheat. I would like to refer to the Debate which took place in the House on 26th October last, on the Motion for the Adjournment, when attention was called to conditions in Europe. If Members read the Official Report of that Debate they will see that enough was said on that occasion by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself, to impress upon everyone the seriousness of the world situation. The Foreign Secretary spoke, as ever, frankly, of the serious conditions in Europe, and drew attention to the grave situation that would arise, unless action was taken by the great wheat producing countries to maximise their contribution for export. Among other things, my right hon. Friend said:
 Additional supplies, on a scale sufficient to bring any widespread relief, must be organised on an international basis, with the cooperation, in particular, of the exporting countries. We must look to them to make a much bigger contribution. For instance, I should like to see much less wheat being fed to livestock in North America, and more maize and other foodstuffs shipped from South America."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1946; Vol. 414, c. 2380.]


That was said for those who were here to hear, and can be read by those who have eyes to see. It is in the Official Report, and it was a warning. During that Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) said he thought there was plenty of wheat in the world which could be used for relief to Europe.

Sir Arthur Salter: In the context, it is quite clear that what I said was that on the information I had while I was in office, up to August, there seemed to be enough wheat for the essential needs of the world, if there was proper organisation of distribution. The right hon. Gentleman himself summed up by saying that if steps were taken to avoid waste, he hoped and believed that there was enough wheat to meet, in full, the essential needs of the world. I have been without access to official information since August, and that Debate was in October last. Can the right hon. Gentleman complain if, at the end of October, with his full official information, he con-. firmed precisely the opinion I had formed several months earlier?

Sir B. Smith: We are at no variance on this point, as I shall prove. I say, quite truthfully, that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke in that Debate it was on the basis that there was—and he now agrees—plenty of wheat in the world to meet the requirements. [Hon. Members: "Does the Minister agree? "] If you wait a little you will see whether I agreed. Of course I agreed at that date. I replied that I only wished I could have endorsed what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had said, and I went on:
 I am at this moment particularly concerned with the world wheat position. The only hope of avoiding further serious hardship and famine conditions in certain parts of Europe this winter and next spring is by maintaining an adequate flow of wheat imports, and we must clearly devote all our efforts to securing this objective." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2379-2447.]

Sir A. Salter: Sir A. Salter rose—

Sir B. Smith: Let me continue. I went on to point out that until recently wheat was one of the few foods of which there was no shortage—and this is where I say there is no variance between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford

University and myself—and that— [An HON. MEMBER: "Read on. It is the next line."] You are very brilliant, but if you have the decency to be quiet—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said, "You are very brilliant "? Is he addressing the Chair, or the House?

Mr. Speaker: I took it as a nice compliment to myself.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, is it not in accord with the traditions of this House for over 200 years. that a Minister should address the Chair, and not hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Speaker: That is right. If an hon Member says, "You," it means me.

Sir B. Smith: The situation had been completely changed by the exceptionally heavy demand arising from the liberation of Europe, coinciding with poor crops resulting from adverse weather conditions in many areas. I said:
It is not yet possible to make a final assessment of the position, but it is clear that it will call for very careful and prudent management of world wheat supplies during the next nine months, and the utilisation of all stocks in excess of minimum requirements which must be carried over into the next season."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2447-48.]
I drew attention to the necessity for the maximum utilisation of home-grown bread grain, for direct human consumption, and stressed the importance of giving human consumption full priority over the feeding of animals. In the course of the same Debate I was pressed by hon. Members to make further reductions in our stocks or to reduce our own consumption in order to make more food available for other countries. I resisted that pressure. In so doing, I incurred the displeasure of a considerable number of hon.Members on both sides of the House. I pointed out that we had already gone as far as we could safely go in reducing our stocks, and firmly refused to make any further cuts in our rations.
What has happened since has, I think, fully confirmed the view I then expressed, that we could not risk any further reduction in our stocks. Moreover, the reactions of the public to my announcement on 5th February fully bears out the


view which I expressed last October, that the people of this country should not be asked to bear any further cuts in consumption, if it were possible to avoid it. Unfortunately, this has not been possible. The situation in Central Europe was again debated on 5th December last, on the Motion of the Archbishop of Canter bury, in another place. The Under-Secretary of State for War, referring to a statement made by the Bishop of Chichester to the effect that, whilst there were shortages of many commodities, there was no world shortage of wheat, said, "I could not allow that statement—"

Mr. Turton: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Member to quote from a Debate in another place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the Minister was not quoting but merely making a reference to the Debate.

Sir B. Smith: Surely, it was a Ministerial statement and I am entitled to make reference to it.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in quoting from a Ministerial statement in another place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The recent practice, on occasions, has been to admit it.

Sir B. Smith: The Under-Secretary said he could not allow that statement to pass without correction, because the plain fact was that the situation as to wheat was one of the most serious preoccupations of those who have to deal with food problems. On 7th December, I again referred to the difficult wheat situation in replying to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes)on the Motion for the Adjournment when he pressed for the depletion of our stocks in order that food might go to the relief of Europe. I said quite plainly that there was a world shortage of wheat. On 17th January, my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, in a speech at the General Assembly of U.N.O. said:
There is one problem which is not confined to countries needing U.N.R.R.A.'s help but is common to nearly the whole world, namely, that of food. A common effort by all peoples is necessary to deal with this pending the return of good harvests.
Finally, when I arrived at Southampton on 23rd January, I warned the Press that the situation regarding the world

shortage of wheat and rice was not promising, though I said as little as I could to them. Surely this in itself is a sufficient refutation of the statement by the acting Leader of the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "No."] Are hon. Members opposite so ill-informed that they are ignorant of what has been well known to anyone who cared to inquire? The general facts of the position have been well known for a long time. This is recognised, at least, by two weeklies that are not noted for their Labour sympathies, "The Economist" and "The Spectator." Both of these papers in their current issues emphasise that many warnings have been given.
What are the circumstances which led to the present position? [An Hon. Member: "Lack of planning."] If the House will bear with me, I will first deal with wheat. There are other problems such as rice, fats, etc., but all of them are accentuated by the fact that the great stand-by of the world, an abundant supply of wheat, is no longer available. I do not intend to repeat what I said to the House on 5th February. I will only remind the House of the outstanding fact that against world import requirements of more than 17,000,000 tons in the first six months of 1946, less, and I am afraid much less, than 12,000,000 tons will be available in the world. Many millions of people in Europe and the Far East will face hunger and starvation. 125,000,000 people in Europe will have to subsist on less than 2,000 calories a day and, in some areas, large numbers will receive as little as 1,000 calories per day.
I have never been under any illusion about the difficulties which were inevitable after the end of the war. My predecessors constantly warned the House and the public that food shortage would not only continue long after the war came to an end, but would be accentuated by the enormous demand which would arise from liberated countries. In 1943 the British Delegation to the Hot Springs Conference was responsible for getting on record resolutions recording the view that supplies of essential foodstuffs would be inadequate to meet the basic requirements for several years after the cessation of. hostilities. They urged all countries to utilise their agricultural resources to the full to bring about a rapid improvement


in food production by increasing their acreage under crops for direct human consumption.
But it was not until the results of the harvests of 1945 were known that it was possible to measure the deterioration in wheat supplies. In July, 1943, stocks in the four main exporting countries amounted to over 46,000,000 tons. From that time stocks fell rapidly because of the greatly increased demand for livestock products. This led to a heavy usage of wheat for feeding livestock in exporting countries. I remember, while in Washington, that, in one bite, 174,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat were shipped to America for the purpose of feeding livestock. Even so, there were still more than 30,000,000 tons of wheat in the four main exporting countries on D-Day.
In the spring of 1945 the wheat situation was still thought to be satisfactory. The former Minister of Production and my predecessor in office went to Washington to discuss with the American and Canadian Governments the action to be taken to meet the great world shortage of many foods. As a result, drasic cuts had to be made in our rations, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Even then, however, the conclusion reached by the Canadian and United States Governments was that wheat supplies were assured. The only problem then was whether transport and port facilities would be available to handle the wheat. So secure did the supply position seem to the Coalition Government that they considered they would be justified in gradually changing over British agriculture from maximum production of human food crops to increased animal production.
They felt that we could afford some reduction in our wheat acreage. Therefore, the Coalition Government decided to reduce the acreage subsidy on wheat for the 1946 crop by£2 an acre. This decision was made in February, 1945, because farmers have to make plans in advance. There has been a great deal of criticism of this action, but, in my view, it was a reasonable decision having regard to the wheat situation as it then appeared.
Hon. Members opposite may suggest that this Government should have reversed that decision, but as I hope to show, the full gravity of the position was

not revealed until late in the autumn. It was too late then to affect the acreage of autumn sown wheat. As a further illustration of the optimistic estimate of cereal supplies, I would remind the House that last spring the former Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), announced an ascending scale of rations for pigs and poultry. Again, I find no fault with the announcement, but I doubt whether it was a wise decision in the light of events. The right hon. Gentleman took a chance, and it did not materialise. As a result, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced on 5th February that we should find it impossible to fulfil the programme of rations increases which was then decided upon. It was not until the results of the 1945 world wheat harvest were known that a full measure of the deterioration of the world wheat situation could be taken.
One of the first things I did when I became Minister of Food was to make a survey of the world food position. It was a pretty gloomy picture. For the first time there was considerable danger of an actual shortage of wheat. It was clear that it was no longer a transport problem. The total stocks in the four main exporting countries had fallen from 46,000,000 tons in July, 1943, to 22,000,000 tons. Serious droughts had affected Australia, the Argentine, French North Africa and other countries. The European harvest, which before the war yielded 45,000,000 tons, fell to 23,000,000 tons. It was clear that the wheat budget could not be made to balance unless every effort was made in producing countries to see that as much wheat as possible was conserved for human consumption. As a result of that report, the Cabinet decided to press upon the Governments of the four main exporting countries the necessity of restricting the use of wheat for animal feeding stuffs and to allow their stocks—that is the minimum end of season stocks under the International Wheat Agreement—to be reduced to provide sufficient wheat for export to meet all the needs of the world. At the same time, through the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, European Governments were warned of the expected wheat shortage and urged to take all practicable steps to make the fullest use of their own cereal crops for human rather than for animal feeding. It was felt that, if action


were taken on those lines, we should probably get through, although it was realised that our own stocks would have to be reduced to the minimum level consistent with safety. But the full seriousness of the position did not finally emerge until the middle of December.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the date of the action to which he referred a moment ago?

Sir B. Smith: I am sorry I have not the date, but it was at the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, I think in October or November. In the middle of December, I received the latest estimates from the Combined Food Board, which is the international body to which I have referred, as to the world supplies and requirements in wheat. Throughout the autumn and early winter months the demands of importing countries had been continually increasing. A new factor in the situation was the increasing demands of the Far Eastern countries for wheat because of the acute shortage of rice. There were immense demands from India, as a result of the failure of the rice crop in many areas through drought, and also the loss of a large quantity of cereals due to damage by tidal wave in Madras. I think the figure was 740,000 tons, a terrific figure, to which I will refer again. The figures which I received from the Combined Food Board showed a deficiency between supplies and requirements of anything between 5 million and 7 million tons.
It was at this point the Government decided that I should go to Washington to discuss the whole position with the American Government and see what measures could be taken to meet the world demands. It was clear that substantial sacrifices would have to be made by this country,but for obvious reasons, it was not desirable to make an official statement on the position until the conclusion of my negotiations. In dealing with wheat, care had to be taken to avoid undermining the confidence of holders of wheat and other cereals. I refer to those holding it for a rise in price because of famine conditions. In dealing with wheat, we had. to take care that we did not undermine confidence. In most countries cereals are grown by a multitude of comparatively small growers. Fears of a worldwide scarcity would have encouraged those peasant farmers to hold their grain. This would have made matters

worse. From the point of view of the consumers in this country, any announcement in advance of an impending shortage would clearly have invited a run upon our flour stocks. As a result of the examination which the United States Secretary of Agriculture and I made in Washington, it was clear that the world was short of a minimum 5,500,000 tons of wheat, or approximately one-third of the total requirements. Cuts had to be made in allocations all round. Having received the agreement of my colleagues, I accepted a cut in our allocation of about a quarter of a million tons. This necessitated an increase in the extraction rate, and a consequential reduction in the supply of animal feeding stuffs.
Since my return from Washington, the position has still further worsened. Even while discussions were in progress, information reached me of a serious state of affairs in India and South Africa. May I say, with regard to South Africa, that I have had to meet two Ministers from the South African Government? A very distressing experience it was. They assured me that, by the end of March, not one bushel of wheat would be in store in South Africa. Whether I did right or wrong, I diverted a ship at once to try to assist them in that situation. Their original demand on the Combined Food Board was about 50,000 tons. In the allocations made in Washington, they received 44,000 tons. It is since that date, owing to the drought, that their demand now upon the world for wheat is 323,000 tons for the full calendar year 1946, of which 225,000 tons is wanted up to the end of June, 1946. As I said, we had allocated 52,000 tons. I had sent this ship, for some easement of the present situation. May I say on maize, that the demand, which was about 220,000 tons to the end of May, 1946, owing to the drought is now 700,000 tons to October, 1946, to April 1947? The. tragedy of it, as Mr. Waterston told me, is that their next harvest looks like going also, because the drought is still with them and the ground is still too hard. "We cannot prepare for the next harvest," he said.
That is the sort of problem that is brought to me. A delegation arrived from India yesterday. I shall be seeing them shortly. A demand that Lord Wavell put to me, supported on the following day by Mr. Casey, was for 1,000,000 tons of wheat or rice this year


for India and Bengal. Today, that demand is 2,250,000 tons, and is rising. I cannot see where we can find wheat or other grains in substitution for rice which will even approximately meet those claims.
At the very moment when I was discussing this matter with my colleagues -in the Cabinet, a telegram was brought to me from Washington stating that the United States Government had overestimated their stocks of wheat by 61 million bushels, or 1,750,000 tons, by which they were short on the estimated stocks. It was arising out of that that the President determined, at the request of myself and Mr. Clinton Anderson, that he would increase their extraction rate from 72 per cent. to 80 per cent. Let us not be under any illusion. That fact will not give back the 1,750,000 tons. If all the economies are effective, the total saving we will get will be 1,200,000 tons.
Perhaps I might now revert to India. On second thoughts I will leave it, as I may have said enough about India— [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—to show the House that those demands are so excessive that it is practically impossible to meet them. I am not one to spread despair and despondency. I am not of that nature. I do not look that type. Nevertheless, in my position, I have to face facts, and the facts are as I have stated them to the House.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask that the Minister will not withhold from the House all the facts about India?

Sir B. Smith: I will do my best. I was trying to shorten a very long speech. [Hon. Members: "Go on."] Very good. I repeat, in the case of India, that it was from the middle of December onwards that we began to receive reports from various parts of that country of the partial failure, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said, of the monsoon. On 3rd January, while I was still at Washington, I received a cable about the partial failure of the monsoon in Bengal, which is the principal rice-exporting area.

Mr. Nicholson: Rice producing area.

Sir B. Smith: Producing, yes, and exporting, too. On 17th January, a further cable referred to a serious deterioration of

the food supply position because of the cyclone in Madras, Bombay, Mysore and other areas in Southern and Western India. On 25th January, we were informed that a conference had been called on 22nd January of representatives of the main surplus and deficit Provinces, at which it had been revealed that in Madras, owing to the continued drought—the rainfall in December being 83 per cent. below normal—the loss of rice and millet was estimated at more than 1,500,000 tons, while in Mysore, for similar reasons, the loss was estimated at more than 300,000 tons. Thus, an additional deterioration in the position of more than 1,000,000 tons was indicated, compared with estimates received in December for those two Provinces alone.
Immediately after I had reported to my colleagues on my return from Washington in the middle of January, the Prime Minister sent an urgent message to the President of the United States and to the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, appealing to them to take all possible steps to increase the quantity of food they could make available for export. There has been an immediate response. It must be borne in mind that the Dominions were already doing their very utmost to make food available, so that we had no right to expect any substantial additional supplies to be put at our disposal. Nevertheless, Canada has already decided to reduce her butter ration in order to divert milk to the production of cheese and milk powder for export, while the Government of Australia has promised to divert 125,000 tons of wheat from feeding livestock so that it may be exported, and they are looking to the possibility of making coarse grains also available. That is a proud record. On a mere call from the Mother Country they are willing to extend themselves, even at this moment, to the cutting of many of their own rations.
Since I spoke to the House on 5th February, we have had news that the Government of the United States have taken prompt action to meet the situation. President Truman has announced a nine-point programme. The flour extraction rate is to be increased to 80 per cent.; the use of wheat for the production of alcohol is to be discontinued; the use of other grains for that purpose is to be reduced; steps are to be taken to reduce the feeding of grain to livestock—which


will probably mean the premature slaughter of large numbers of livestock and poultry. Remember that every time we move in this matter, something goes down, and there is a shortage to be faced later on. A vigorous economy campaign is to be instituted, and various measures are to be taken to facilitate the rail movement and shipment of wheat and flour. Only the great exporting countries are in a position to make any substantial contribution to the solution of the wheat supply problem.
This action of the President will be of inestimable value. I am quite sure it is a fine reply to the Prime Minister, who was the first to initiate these telegrams in his effort to get the world alive to the seriousness of the situation. We must not try to deceive ourselves into thinking that this will solve all our difficulties. It is estimated that the measures taken by the United States will save 45,000,000 bushels, or 1,200,000 tons. But it must not be thought that this quantity will reduce the gap between supplies and requirements to which I have referred. These measures are necessary to enable the United States to make their contribution to the supplies required for export. If these measures were not taken, the situation would be just that much more serious. There are still doubtful factors in the situation, and many possibilities of further deterioration. It is only right to warn the House that, before we are through, we in this country may have to make still further sacrifices. We might have to raise our extraction rate still higher, or use coarse grains as diluents in our bread; I hope, however, that I shall be able to avoid that.
I now come to rice. It is not necessary for me to say that in all Eastern countries rice is interchangeable with wheat, for flour is acceptable by the Pacific Islands, which means wheat in exchange for rice. That fact is obvious, but quite a lot of people are not aware of it. It was always foreseen that a problem of The utmost gravity would arise if the rice consuming countries of the East were liberated before production in the rice exporting countries was restored. That is exactly the position which has arisen, because of the sudden collapse of Japan. During the Japanese occupation the great rice-producing areas of Burma, Siam, and French Indo-China tended to limit production to their own requirements.

They had no means of disposing of any surplus. Production therefore fell and liberation did not take place soon enough to increase the production from the 1945 crops. In other Eastern countries, such as China, Java, and the Philippines, production has fallen off as a result of war devastation. I have already referred to the misfortunes which have overtaken India through the failure of the monsoon. The magnitude of the problem will be appreciated when it is realised that in 1946, exports of less than 1,500,000 tons are expected from Burma, Siam and Indo-China, compared with an average pre-war export of about 6,000,000 tons. In Siam, where I understand there is 1,500,000 tons of rice, the problem is that of getting it out. The quantity available for export during 1946 for all sources, therefore, is, at most, 3,000,000 tons, whereas the world requirements are 6,000,000 tons, leaving a deficit of 3,000,000 tons.
We are doing what we can in countries to which we have access, such as Burma and Siam, to get maximum supplies ex ported. The main hope lies in Siam. After the cessation of hostilities I immediately despatched to Siam a special rice unit, composed of persons with an intimate knowledge of the pre-war rice trade. Unfortunately, the leader was killed shortly after his arrival in an aero plane accident. Their task was to take all possible steps to facilitate the procurement of rice, transport it to port, and arrange shipment to other countries. The main difficulty in Siam, however, is that the Siamese growers are loath to part with their rice, owing to the lack of confidence in their currency. They are holding on to it as a tangible asset Another problem is to give them sufficient incentive to sell their goods; they are not very willing to sell unless their is something to buy with their money. We are therefore giving Siam high priority in the supply of consumer goods such as agricultural tools, textiles and so forth. I now come to oils and fats—

Mr. Nicholson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rice, will he be good enough to give us the figures as to the allocation of the Siamese rice between various countries?

Sir B. Smith: We have not yet obtained the Siamese rice to allocate. I cannot


make any promises at the moment, because it is an operation of the Combined Food Board. It has to go from the exporting countries to the Combined Food Board who make their allocations in the light of world demands, of which I am ultimately notified.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it a fact or not, that 6o,ooo tons have been allocated to Cuba, which refuses to ration rice?

Sir B. Smith: I am not sure, but there is an allocation to Cuba. I do not want to be brought into a discussion which criticises another country, and I would beg the hon. Member not to press that point further.
I now turn to oils and fats. The grave food situation in India and the difficulty of importing sufficient cereals to meet their needs, naturally makes the Indian Government reluctant to part with ground nuts. During the past two years they have permitted the export of 500,000 tons, and last summer the prospects were such that we had every reason to suppose that we would get more this summer. In fact, on 15th December we were informed by the Government of India that the quantity would probably be 554,000 tons. This was subject to review during this month, February. On 31st January we heard from our agent in India that, owing to crop damage in Madras, the Madras Province were threatening to reduce the export quota; a week later the Government of India informed me of the serious damage to millet and rice to which I have already referred. In view of this, it would seem that we shall not get more than 300,000 tons of ground nuts, instead of 554,000 tons which had been provisionally promised and the 600,000 tons allocated by the Combined Food Board. This represents 130,000 tons less oil than the Combined Food Board expected.
It is a sad story which I have to tell the House, but we had a further misfortune. One of the first steps which the Government took at the end of the war in Europe was to send a whaling expedition to the Antarctic. As this was the first expedition since before the war, it was expected that, in the interval, the whales would have remained unmolested and that there would have been an exceptionally large catch. Unfortunately, the achievement falls short of expectations. In the first

place, owing to the inevitable delay in fitting out the expedition, many of the vessels arrived late on the fishing grounds. We are taking all possible steps to extend the whaling season, but this is regulated by an international convention. In practice the approach of winter darkness, and the freezing of the seas, will limit the possibility of any profitable extension. It is unfortunate that this expedition has met with the most atrocious weather. Finally, and contrary to all expectations, the yield of oil per whale has been far below average. I estimate that we are unlikely to get more than 100,000 tons of whale oil, as against our expectation of 135,000 tons.
As a result of all these circumstances, in 1946 we shall be short of our total oil supply by well over 100,000 tons. The cut of one ounce in the cooking fat ration will go some way to meet this position but not all the way. I shall endeavour to find means of replacing some of this deficiency this winter. I shall aim at getting more from American hogs, for example, for if hogs are to be killed in America owing to shortage of foodstuffs, there should be more lard. But I warn the House that it is another dollar proposition. There is a very real risk that we may have to make further cuts later in the year. I will do my best to avoid this also.
A friend of mine with prophetic foresight, when I left New York to come home, handed me a book and said, "Ben, I think this will amuse you on the way home." The title of the book was "The Egg and I." He was certainly prophetic. I promised the House that I would deal more fully in the course of this Debate with the question of dried eggs. Housewives rightly attach great importance to this commodity and the provision of these supplies, I think it will be agreed, has been one of the most welcome steps taken by my Department under food control. I suppose my Department has done more to popularise dried egg than any other body that exists in the country. It is perhaps not generally realised, however, that in the past by no means all have taken up their full entitlement. In last August when the entitlement was one packet for every four weeks, the offtake was only half of the entitlement.
In the early summer of last year it became doubtful whether the United


States would be able to maintain exports of dried egg to this country on the then existing levels. By the time the present Government took office, the stocks position and supplies in sight were such that 1 had to reduce the issue of one packet to every eight weeks. Immediately afterwards Lend-Lease came to an end—it is important to remember that—and, apart from the small quantity in the pipeline, shipments of dried egg ceased. Moreover, it was made clear that unless we gave firm orders for the whole of our 1946 requirements, many of the plants would be converted to other purposes, and, indeed some of them were. We had to make up our minds how much of our limited dollar resources we could afford to spend on this commodity. It was not an easy matter to settle. We did not know how much of the reduced ration would be taken up; we had good reason to expect a considerable increase in shell egg supplies in the spring; we had to spend our limited supplies of dollars to the best advantage, and dried egg is a very expensive food. The House will not expect me to quote the actual price per ton, but I would refer hon. Members to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question in this House on 7th February, when he pointed out that the quantity of dried egg which was imported in the last financial year, if it had to be paid for at the current American price, would cost£35,000,000. There are a good many foods which give us better value for our money. For example, at the price at which we used to buy American meat, we could obtain five tons of meat for every ton of dried egg.
Dried egg is also expensive to the Exchequer. It is being sold at present at the retail price of is. 3d. per packet. The actual retail value, if it were to be sold without loss, is 2s. 7d a packet. The total cost of the subsidy involved, if we were to continue importing at a rate sufficient to maintain the recent rate of distribution, is£16,000,000. Weighing up these factors I could not contemplate spending dollars to enable supplies to come here in anything like the quantities under Lend-Lease. Then, too, the egg position was such that I could not get any dried egg to arrive during the first four months of 1946, so I had to face a reduced issue or a gap in the issue.

Taking all these considerations into account, I decided to buy enough to continue issuing one packet every eight weeks when shell eggs were scarce, to have the gap when supplies of shell eggs were greatest in the Spring, and then to resume issues of dried egg. Under the plan I had in mind there would have been about the same number of eggs in one form or another as in 1945, but more of them would have been shell eggs. I regret the necessity for a temporary break in these allocations of dried egg, but I expect to be able to issue 40 shell eggs per ration book in the period February to May inclusive. During the same months last year the figure was 26. I think that answers my right hon. Friend's point. The dried egg taken up, during that period last year represented 18 eggs per head, making 44 altogether, so that there is very little change in quantity. It is four eggs, and not the figure of the right hon. Gentleman, and this year the whole of this quantity is in its natural condition.
It was never my intention to discontinue the issue of dried egg permanently. The Press notice which I issued made that clear. Let me read the last paragraph— I do not wish to weary the House with the body of the note:
It is hoped, however, that satisfactory arrangements will be made later in the year which will enable the shell egg distribution to be supplemented once again with supplies of domestic pack dried eggs.
That was not telling people that they were not likely to get it back. Unfortunately, I regret to say, many of the Press omitted to put in that paragraph; many of them omitted the last sentence. The question has been asked whether we could not use for ordinary civilian consumption some of the bulk supplies of dried egg which we hold for allocation to the bakery trade and caterers. The total quantity taken up by those caterers represents less than four allocations for domestic consumption. Of this, 75 per cent. is allocated to the bakery trade, and I should be very loath to reduce the issues to that trade. I do not think it would be good policy from the consumer's point of view. It would reduce substantially the quantity and quality of cakes and flour confectionery. So far as the small quantity issued to caterers is concerned, it amounts to less than one domestic allocation. Its withdrawal would have an adverse effect


on the quality of meals provided in catering establishments including the many industrial canteens throughout the country.
I have dealt now with those foods which have been most in the public eye during the past few days. I don't want to leave the impression that all is well. [Laughter.] I will come to that if hon. Members will wait a minute. It is not as bad as hon. Members opposite think. The world sugar position is precarious. It does not need me to tell the House why. There are greater demands coming from ex-enemy and liberated countries; demands are increasing almost every day. The beet sugar production in Europe in the season which has just finished is estimated to be 4,000,000 tons less than prewar. The production in the Philippines, which used to export 1,000,000 tons a year, is only a few thousand tons this year. There were reports of a stock of 1,000,000 tons of sugar in Java, but such stocks as there are are inaccessible under present conditions. The war is still going on there—or rather, there is trouble in that country. There have been disappointing crops in most of the Empire sugar producing countries. Meanwhile world requirements are constantly increasing. I was planning to increase the bacon ration as soon as possible but, owing to a fall in the expected supplies from Canada and Denmark—each of them, 40,000 tons for next year—and the United Kingdom, this is not possible. I will do all I can to maintain the ration as at present. Cheese and starch are causing me anxiety. Much depends on whether we get the Loan from the United States. That is by no means certain, but I must warn the House, especially hon. Members who were so vociferous in their opposition to its acceptance, that failure to get it will cause further difficulties. They should have little to grumble about.
So much for the bad side of the balance sheet. I would not like to leave the impression that there are no bright spots. Attention has already been drawn to some statements made recently by members of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington has called attention today to them—which may have encouraged the public to expect some improvement in the variety of their diet. The Prime Minister,

for example, on 25th January, in reply to the sponsors of the "Save Europe Now "campaign, said:
 It may be shown to be necessary to provide some variation in the present monotonous and unexciting diet in order to secure increased production at home and thereby build up our export trade.
This is not inconsistent with the picture I painted, although it might appear so at first sight. We must distinguish between the staple foods which form the basis of our diet—wheat, sugar and fats, about which warnings have been repeatedly. given—and what I call extras, which provide variety. So far as these foods are concerned, there are favourable prospects. Improvements have been promised and delivered. Bananas have begun to come back, citrus fruit, oranges, lemons, and grapefruit have been made available in increasing quantities. I intend to take every opportunity to augment our supplies of vegetables and fruit by imports as far as this is consistent with undertakings to home producers, although the tight position of refrigerated tonnage is very difficult. If I could have another 10 refrigerator ships, I could make a good deal of change very quickly in this country, but, unfortunately, I have not got them. Table jellies are to be restored supplies of canned fruits are to be put on points, there have been improvements too in one or two of the basic foods. Milk supplies are decidedly better this winter than last. We have raised the entitlement to two and a half pints a week, a month earlier than last year. Fish supplies in 1946 will be back to, and even in excess of, prewar. Even the diminished fat ration includes three ounces of butter instead of two, which was the amount when I took office. There are more shell eggs and the potato position this year, I am glad to say, is quite satisfactory.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that fish supplies will be better than they were in 1939. Is that really so?

Sir B. Smith: I am hoping so. [Hon. Members: "Is it?"] It is quite obvious I cannot say specifically that it will be so, but, judging from the number of ships and the number of trawlers coming back into the service, and the fact that I am taking imports of white fish wherever I can get them, I still feel optimistic.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the part of the fishing community which I represent has lost more than half the boats we had before the war, that we have never got the boats back, and that half the men are idle?

Sir B. Smith: Nevertheless, 30 ships a month are coming back into the service.

Sir David Robertson: Will the Minister say a word on this point in regard to the prophecy he has made? These ships are lying all round the coasts awaiting repair. Over 150 trawlers are awaiting repair. Is he not also aware that the demands are very much greater than they were in 1939 because of the appalling deficiency in other foods?

Sir B. Smith: Nevertheless, there are 200 trawlers now under repair and we are getting them out just as fast as we can. After all, we did not injure the trawlers or damage them; our job is to repair them and we have 200 under repair. It is our job to get them back into work.
I think I have said enough to the House on the general position in regard to food in this country and the world in general. I would like to thank the House and particularly the Opposition for the tolerance with which they have listened to me. It has been a long, gloomy, story and no doubt was very wearisome to many hon. Members, but the facts are what they are. This is not a time for developing a partisan spirit when the world is more or less hungry. This is a time when we should do, as we have done so often before in the country's interest, the best we can for our people, not forgetting our responsibilities to the world at large.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: When we come to look back on these discussions, I am certain we shall regard this Debate as a turning point in the hitherto ecstatic career of this Government. Listening to the two opening speeches, especially the melancholy catalogue of the Minister of' Food, we realise that the Government's honeymoon is over. Now begin the drab details of domestic life. What with coal last week, and food this week, the start is unpromising It is all the more un-happy because the Government have not succeeded in telling the facts of domestic life to the parties concerned. We now know that Ministers have been aware for months of the impending world famine

and we must suppose that they could relate our own position to the storm which they saw gathering and we know that they have used these facts to explain to Europe why we could not make more contributions to their food problem.
On the other side of the Atlantic, our American friends tell us that when the British delegation presented the case for the dollar credit they gave the fullest details of our stocks and prospective supplies. But the House of Commons have never had these vital statistics. The people have never understood what was happening. Housewives do not read the HANSARD of another place nor do they read the "Economist." These things have to be explained to them in a modern manner.

Major Cecil Poole: By Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Eccles: By not consulting this nation the Government have debased the coinage of democracy, and they are now reaping the results all over the country of not taking the people into their confidence. It is not very easy to know why the Government pursued this policy of secrecy towards our own people. No doubt the habit of saying only pleasant things to win votes is hard to break. On this side of the House we have watched with interest the endeavours of the right hon. Gentlemen to switch over from the popular fun and games of electioneering to the unpopular task of governing a country which is still in a state of emergency.

Major Poole: After you had had it for over 20 years.

Mr. Eccles: This food Debate, and the crisis behind it, is one more proof that what the people of this country really wanted from their Government were first-aid repairs in a state of emergency, and not a revolutionary unheaval in their economic system. The British economy is now like a blitzed house. The roof is leaking, the door will not shut and the cupboards are bare. This is no time to start pulling down the main staircase or rebuilding the top storey. The people are crying out for first-aid repairs, for enough to eat, and for somewhere dry to live, but the Government have not heard those cries. They have got their priorities all wrong, and, as I hope to show the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is largely responsible for those


wrong priorities. The right hon. Gentleman has the unenviable task, through the power of the purse, of deciding a great many priorities. What is it he puts first in his list? We have listened to the right hon. Gentleman for six months, and it is hard to deny that he gives pride of place to banging the Box at the Second Reading of Socialist Bills. He prefers long-term excursions into Socialism to practical remedies for the troubles on the doorstep of every British family.
I ask the House to contrast this Socialist set of priorities with another very different set, one to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) put his name—food, work and homes. I know hon. Members opposite are in the habit of saying that my right hon. Friend is a splendid war leader but knows nothing of the domestic aims and needs of the British people.

5.32 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
1. Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1946.
2. India (Proclamations of Emergency) Act, 1946.
3. Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1946.
4. Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1946. 
5. Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946.
6. Bank of England Act, 1946.

WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: I was referring to a practical, as opposed to a Socialist set of priorities—food, work and homes. I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford with great prescience put food first. What emerges from this present crisis is that this Government have never given food a high priority at all. It is very curious that the

Chancellor of the Exchequer should have tolerated so expensive an error. Years ago when I did my best to look up to the right hon. Gentleman he seemed to me to be a most able economist. I would, therefore, have expected him to draw the right conclusions from three salient features of our postwar economy.
First, we are a debtor nation on a colossal scale; secondly, as all the experts told as away back in the summer, the world is in for a food famine for several years; and thirdly, in a period of full employment, the dirty jobs like farming only get done if the pay and conditions of masters and men are more or less on a level with other industries. These are obvious facts but they do not seem to have had any effect upon the Chancellor. He does not seem to have been stirred either by a desire to save foreign exchange, or by a desire to make the maximum contribution from these islands to the food situation in Europe and Asia, or by a desire to put the finances of British agriculture upon a healthy basis.
These are all serious criticisms but I hope to show the House they are all equally valid. I must begin by asking the Chancellor a question about imports. Obviously, if we could easily obtain more food from abroad it would be wrong to divert exceptional resources to increasing the production of food at home. During the war the Coalition Government kept the United Kingdom import programme under continual review. When I was a servant of the then Minister of Production, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), I had a hand in framing the import programme. I well remember that Lord Woolton's minimum demands for food had absolute priority over everything else. Raw materials and munitions, which were the concern of my Minister, had to wait their turn. Food came first. Now, I want the Chancellor to tell us what sort of import programme has been worked out for 1946 and, inside that programme, what priority has been given to food.

Major Poole: How does the hon. Gentleman substantiate his statement that food was of a higher priority than munitions, when men were recruited from the land to work in munition factories and mines?

Mr. Eccles: The hon. and gallant Gentleman perhaps did not follow me. 1 was talking about the import programme of the United Kingdom. Shipping being short, we had to allocate the tonnage available. One cannot allocate anything which is short without a system of priority. The minimum demands of food came before anything else. [Interruption.] But I am not talking about production. Has food the same priority now in the import programme which it had during the war? This is a very proper question to ask the Chancellor, because, as the House well knows, the limiting factor on the total amount of the United Kingdom imports today is no longer shipping but foreign exchange. The Treasury are now the masters of the import programme.
We must know the answer to this question in order to see upon which horn of the dilemma the Chancellor is hooked. This is the dilemma. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that food has not the highest priority inside the import programme and that if he so chose to use his foreign exchange resources, we could have bought more food, then why has he gone on importing the same quantities of tobacco, films and other articles which are secondary to the health of the people? If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman says food has the very highest priority and not for love or money can we secure any more, then he must tell us why the Government have done nothing, absolutely nothing, all through the autumn to stimulate food production at home. There will not be much argument that the Government have failed in their duty in not stimulating British agriculture. It is a more difficult matter to decide whether films and tobacco should give way to additional food from the United States of America.
Here again the Treasury are the villains of the piece. The right hon. Gentleman will have been advised that the vast sums which the British public spend upon films and tobacco, and, I may add, upon beer, are twice blessed: first, they bring in a lot of revenue; second, they mop up huge amounts of purchasing power against a comparatively small expenditure. of labour. These three taxes, films, tobacco and beer, are the three pin-up girls of the Board of Inland Revenue. The Commissioners dote on them. They will not have a word said against them. We are now in

a state of emergency. With the American credit hanging in the balance, is the Chancellor right to forswear any considerable saving in foreign exchange simply because he has not got a ready made alternative for gathering in the taxes or for keeping inflation at bay?
Is he right to put tax-gathering ahead of the health of the people? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has also been advised that the difficulties of rationing tobacco, films and beer are beyond solution. We have heard that sort of advice before. The tired and overworked civil servants are quite right to use that as the opening gambit upon their Minister, but is the House right to tolerate administrative convenience at the expense of the people's food? Because that is what is happening, and on that we must have a clear answer from the Chancellor.
I turn to the production of food at home. This Government have done nothing serious to stimulate food production since they came into office. Other hon. Members will go into further details on this point. We, on this side of the House, have continually told the Government that if they did not make an all-; out drive for rural housing, which they have not done, if they did not look urgently at village amenities, which they have not done, if they did not restore the wheat payments,which we asked them to do and which they have not done, and, above all, if they did not settle the labour crisis on the land, not only would our farms not produce the same amount of food as last year but production would sharply decline.
For 100 years, the towns of this country have looked to the fields for a new supply of labour. Now, suddenly, in 1946, the position is exactly reversed. Unless the fields can attract from the towns sufficient workers, nothing can stop a decline in the production of British food. I have told the House more than once that agriculture is in a unique position. It is the only great industry which has to expect that, as demobilisation proceeds, its labour force will be reduced. The prisoners of war and the Women's Land Army will go, and the men coming out of the Forces will not make good the loss. That has been common knowledge for months, but the Government have done nothing at all about it until last week, when, at our request, they cancelled the


call-up of the 8,000 young men. All through last autumn we pressed the Minister to widen Class B releases to agriculture. These releases were confined to an absurdly narrow range of specialists. In spite of all the efforts of the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut. -Colonel Corbett) and others, at the end of January, only a fortnight ago, only 1,200 men had been released to agriculture under Class B. Let the House compare this figure of 1,200 with the number released to the building industry. I ask the House to consider why there should be a scheme, which we heard about today, for miners to come out of the Forces at once if they are willing to go back into the pits? Why is there no such scheme for agriculture? Is food in the stomach any less needed than coal in the scuttle?
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly ever give us any facts or figures of importance, and I venture to tell the House what is the position in regard to men in the Services who before they joined up were registered as workers on the land. All through the war,the number of farmers and farm workers in the Services was about 120,000. There are in the Forces today about 90,000, and, if the present demobilisation time-table is adhered to, there will still be, at the end of June next, well over 40,000 farmers and farm workers in the Forces. That is a disgraceful fact. Ministers have no right to go on the wireless in the evening and make high moral appeals to the people to make sacrifices when their own Government are doing nothing to produce more food. It simply does not square to ask the housewife and her family to go on tightening their belts while the common sense remedies for the situation in our own agriculture have not been tried.
One more point about wheat, and I put it now because it has something to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am certain that, knowing, as the Ministers of Food and Agriculture did, that the cereal situation was getting worse all over the world, they must have pressed the Cabinet to restore the wheat subsidy from£2 to£4 and that the Chancellor must have turned it down. In February last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who was then Minister of Agriculture, made a bargain with the farmers. On his side, he took off the cropping directions; on

their side, they accepted a 50 per cent. cut in the wheat payment. The result of that bargain was that, last autumn, very much less wheat was sown than previously, and—and this is the important point—farmers put into operation long-term plans to turn back from cereals to livestock and dairy production. The Minister of Food said that the decision of my right hon. Friend was right when he made it.

Sir B. Smith: When he made it.

Mr. Eccles: Yes, but I would remind the right hon.Gentleman that we, on this side, as soon as the House reassembled after the Summer Recess, knew that his decision, in the changed circumstances, was wrong, although we never had the information which the right hon. Gentleman had, and we frequently said so.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he and his friends, as long ago as the first assembling of this Parliament, in the changed circumstances, would have restored that subsidy, and, if so, do they still claim that they were kept in the dark?

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Member can read it all in HANSARD.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member knew the changed circumstances.

Sir B. Smith: Whom did the hon. Gentleman mean when he said his decision was wrong?

Mr. Eccles: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport. If the Minister will read Hansard for 2nd November, 1945, he will find it in the Debate on the Adjournment. We are now asked, in February, 1946, and I speak for the farmers, to plough up as much as we can. The point I would put to the Minister is this. If a farmer ploughs up now, he is not just going to make a loss, if there is a loss, on the spring cereals crop; he is certain of interference with his long-term plan to turn back to livestock, which he put in hand as the result of a bargain with the former Minister of Agriculture. I have dwelt on this point because when, last Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Agriculture to restore the deficiency payments, he gave me a most unreasonable answer, and said that farmers should do


it out of loyalty. Would he go to any other industry and ask them to upset their plans and work longer for less pay? It is just possible that, if he were dealing with one large firm, the Minister could get hold of the managing director, and might make an arrangement whereby he adjusted his production programme, but nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with one large firm, but with 200,000 farmers. He must use methods that are suited to such a wide range of temperaments and financial circumstances.
I have one further point to make to the Chancellor. When Lend-Lease stopped, the right hon Gentleman came to the House and made a most serious statement in which he said the food subsidies would have to go up by something like£100 million; he was not sure of the exact sum, but it was a very large sum of money. That was the red light Surely, any ordinary man at that time would have seen that his foreign exchange resources were going to be strained and would have pressed his colleagues to do something to stimulate food production at home? But nothing has been done. Here we are in a crisis of national and international proportions. The Government have failed in their duty; they have landed us in a predicament, and it will be difficult to get out of it because the time has gone by when we might have made satisfactory arrangements.
Hon. Members will agree that we must all do our best to help get the food. I can only speak for myself. I know my farmers and farm workers, and I think they will pay attention to what I say. I will go back to Wiltshire this weekend; I will ask them to plough up as much as they can and to cast on one side their long term plans. But upon one condition—the Government must swallow a large slice of the only food that will always be unrationed. Ministers must eat humble pie. They must admit the long catalogue of their errors and omissions. They must go all out for rural housing and village amenities. They must restore the wheat subsidy; they must settle the wages. issue on the basis of a fair minimum and rates substantially above that minimum for men of different skills. If they do that, I am certain, speaking for my own constituents, that the farmers, farm workers and their women folk will respond, and the Government will get the food. I hope they will

get more food from the Empire as well, and many more tons of dried egg, but I must tell right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, whatever they do, they will not be able to put Humpty Dumpty back on his wall, and they will not be able to reconstitute the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Food.

6.3 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am amazed to hear, for the first time, the anxiety of hon. Members opposite at the food situation. I imagine that every black disaster that faces this country, through storm and hail, will be blamed on the advent of the Labour Government. The newspapers which represent hon. Members opposite have been telling us that it is impossible to exaggerate the disasters that are going to occur in this country because of the Labour Government. It may be impossible, but no one can deny that hon. Members opposite have been doing their best. War is usually followed by famine and pestilence. After the last war we had pestilence. We thought we might have it this time, but "it looks as if we are having famine instead. That is so unusual that no one could have expected it or predicted it. The harvests have always been plentiful. The people of this country have always known that the earth yielded up her increase, that bountiful Nature provided amply for the children of men, and the people of this country have always wondered why there was never sufficient food for their children. It was in 1840 that the great Carlyle said:
 Parliament will absolutely, and with whatever effect, have to uplift itself out of the deep rut of ' do nothing doctrine ' and learn to say something more edifying than ' laissez faire.' If Parliament cannot learn this what is to become of Parliament? 
Eight years after the passing of the Reform Act, Parliament went on the down grade for one hundred years—not merely laissez faire, but putting the screw on the working classes and depriving them of the means of life itself.

Mr. E.' P. Smith: If the hon. Lady would allow me to interrupt, may I ask her whether it is not a fact that food was cheaper in this country in the year 1900 than it had ever been? [HON. MEMBERS: "Wages were low."]

Mrs. Mann: I am probably the only person in this House who has had handed


to her by Parliament one shilling a week for each of her boys. After the last war we were told there would be homes for heroes. When my husband came home after the last war I had three sons. At that time we were getting 2S. for each of them; the unemployed were getting 2s. on which to bring up each of their children. I think in the Elizabethan period, 2s. was the amount for an illegitimate child. Nevertheless, the 2s. was considered too much by Parliament at that time. After the last war the harvests were plentiful. We sent our children to church and to Sunday school to sing the harvest thanksgiving hymn:
 Come, ye thankful people, come,
All is safely garnered in. 
God our. Maker doth provide
For our wants to be supplied.
Come, ye thankful people, come,
Join this song of harvest home.
What did we see? We saw the deliberate restriction schemes being imposed at home and abroad. We saw the Stevenston restriction scheme. We saw one restriction scheme after another. It made us wonder, and it made us doubt even if our religion was not wrong.
 I have been young and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken.
But surely the righteous were forsaken when the mothers were given one shilling. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) says that his only concern is work, food and homes. In those days he was the Member for Dundee. When it was proposed to reduce the 2s. to Is., the people of Dundee wrote to him. There was no reply. They wrote again, but still there was no reply. They gathered together a deputation and came to Westminster to meet him, but he did not see them. How could we bring up the boys of El Alamein and the 51st Division on is. a week? Hon. Members opposite must surely be talking with their tongues in their cheeks today. I have often wondered how I should manage on my 26s. a week with three children. We could not afford it. Yet at the very time that Parliament so decreed we should have 26s. for a man, wife and three children, a White Russian refugee officer with a wife and three children was getting£3 14s. 4½d
I do not know how far housewives think the Minister is to blame. Personally, I. have every confidence that wherever food is to be found, the Minister will find it

and distribute it. I can recall the Minister reducing the fat ration a few months ago. There was no outcry about that He gave it back to us again. He lacked the Woolton technique. If he had studied the Woolton technique, he might have said to us, "My dears, it is wrong of me to withdraw dried egg, but I shall restore it and you must trust me. I am going to withdraw dried egg, but I shall give you shell eggs in its place." There is so much to be said for technique in approaching women. There is the man who, tiring of a woman and not wishing to keep on with the engagement, says to her: "I am tired of you, you bore me stiff, I do not want anything more to do with you." There is the other type who approaches her in. a different way and says: "My dear, I could never be worthy of you." It is just the same. It does not put a single packet of dried egg in the larder, and the women of this country know it. The women of this country are rather different now from what they were when Lord Woolton was handling them. I do wish hon. Members would realise that the days when a woman was expected to be "a ministering angel "have passed. They are not now dealing with women who, "in our hours of ease," are "uncertain, coy and hard to please." The days are changing and their mood is changing, and the Minister has to meet that situation.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Could the hon. Lady indicate when these "hours of ease" to which she refers occur?

Mrs. Mann: I wish I could reply to that. So many people in this country said, "If we could only get over the bloodshed, we would not care if we went on half rations and starved ourselves." Let the women remember what they said when the bombs were falling. On the question of dried egg, Members have different opinions. Personally, I hate the stuff,. and those who buy it in restaurants must inevitably hate it because, cooked in bulk, it is very objectionable. But it is altogether wrong for my right hon. Friend to think that if he withdraws dried egg and gives us the 40 shell eggs he has equalised things. That is why I would like to take my right hon. Friend into my kitchen. With Is. 2d. worth of butcher meat, what are we to do? With dried egg we can make an omelette and chips. There is one meal a week.


No one would dream of putting shell eggs into a Yorkshire pudding, yet the. Yorkshire pudding helps the meat ration and makes it very attractive. That again requires dried egg. Stodgy puddings like semolina are greatly improved by the dried egg. We have to make dishes bright, attractive and imaginative, because so many people revolt at stodgy dishes. With lack of appetite, resistance to disease is lessened. Macaroni is in plentiful supply now, and with dried egg and grated cheese there is another meal. If fish is in short supply, and one is forced to take the less tempting variety of fish, it can be flaked with dried egg and flour and there is another meal.
My right hon. Friend told us that he was going to supply dried egg in bulk to the bakers. I often wonder if the. bakers ever put dried egg, or any other kind of egg, into the stuff they sell-the hard sawdusty things that are sold as pastry. Raisins, currants and sultanas are coming on the market, and with dried egg. the housewife has a whole armful of resources. My right hon. Friend also exaggerates the importance of containers, because I know that in my co-operative society, dried egg was on the counter in a 14I6. biscuit tin with a small scoop, and I could have eight ounces or only four ounces, just as I wanted. I am certain the housewife would be glad if my right hon. Friend could arrange for that.
I am going to waste bread. That is a dreadful statement to make, but I have to waste bread. I hate having to do it. I was brought up from infancy to realise that to throw away a crust was a wicked crime. Yet I have to waste bread because the bread arrives rough-handled. I do not know in whose hands it has been; generally it is dirty, and I have to slice off the dirt before I can use the bread. If my right hon. Friend could give us wrapped bread I could say sincerely that there would be no likelihood of it being wasted. Better still, if he could give us wrapped, sliced bread there would not be any likelihood of wastage, because so much is wasted by those who do not know how to slice bread properly. I have illustrated the variety that we can get into dull, wartime diet from dried egg.

Mr. Boothby: Before the hon. Lady leaves her kitchen, may I ask whether she

has already forgotten the old diet which built up Scotland, of oatmeal, tatties and herbs?

Mrs. Mann: I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman we cannot even get oatmeal porridge, because we have not milk at our meal tables for the oatmeal. We are hoping to get a little extra milk which will enable us to put porridge on the menu again. If I had to choose between variety in diet and variety in films, I do not think there would be any hesitation on my part, or the part of the British housewives, as to the choice. I am really a film fan myself. I like to go at least once a week, if I can, to see good films. But in my constituency, the picture houses have to keep open six nights per week, and they have to provide variety. Here is some of the menu. Before I read it I would like to tell hon. Members there are grand people in my constituency, schoolteachers and others, who are very anxious that the youth shall be brought up to enjoy leisure as they ought. This is what the picture houses are serving up:
Rollicking Civvy Street comic giving a series of crazy incidents pivotting on an ex-Home Guard father of quadruplets, who, notwithstanding his own staggering domestic responsibilities, successfully acts as match maker to the chequered love affair of his pompous boss's only son and a pretty evacuee.
 ' Lady on a Train.' Gay, crime-comedy-melodrama, telling the adventures of a glamorous blonde addict who, after seeing a brutal murder, becomes a detective, and in face of stiff opposition apprehends the ruthless killer.
I had better finish with this one:
 Psychological murder mystery, concerns. a subtle wife-killer in love with the younger sister of his wife, and to get her he disposes of his wife on their fifth wedding anniversary. Everything points to them being an ideally married couple and he remains unsuspected. There is an enthralling climax when, suspecting his own sanity, he goes back to the scene of the crime to make sure she is dead.
[Laughter.] I cannot say I am amused that the children of my constituency should have that rubbish served up to them. If picture-house managers and cinema promoters have to fill in six nights, I think it would be much better if they handed over one night to some of the youth organisations, who could introduce our young people to good literature, starting with, say, the children from seven to ten years of age, introducing them to "Alice in Wonderland," Kingsley's "Water Babies," and as they get older,


if they want romance and adventure, what is wrong with Conrad, or Sir Walter Scott? I would prefer to see that than to see us sending money to America on the returns of this sort of thing. We ought to tell them to keep that sort of stuff, and to keep their boogie-woogie and let us have dried egg. I do not think the women of this country will object when the situation is presented to them. When they know the situation no one will stand by the nation more than the mothers. It is the mothers who have met this struggle all through these years when the harvests were plentiful and when the harvests have failed. I am quite certain they will respond now, and help the nation through again.
I would just add a word to my right hon. Friend. It may be better for him to adopt the cooing, dovelike notes of the radio doctor, or the technique of Lord Woolton—it will not make any difference which it is. We just do not like a left hook, or whatever it is an ex-boxer gives one. We do not like to be told, "As for dried egg, you have had it." That is not the way to woo the women of this country. I again emphasise that we have every faith in the right hon.Gentleman. We know it would not make a bit of difference how he said it, for his sincerity is not in doubt. I only think the technique might be altered. I am sure the women of this country will stand behind the Minister until we see this thing through.

6.28 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: In a serious situation, and sympathising, as all of us do, with the very real difficulties of the Government at this time, no one of us would wish to make any captious criticism. I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), if I may refer to the earlier parts of her speech in which she made some reference to food, I do not propose to blame the Government for drought anywhere in the world any more than I propose to praise them for the absence, so far, of any serious world epidemic. Some hon. Members have particular points of criticism of the Government policy, and I shall have a few proposals to make myself in a few minutes. I think, however, that the main charge of the country, as of the Leader of the Opposition, against the Government is that they failed before last week to give adequate and early enough

information of the situation which was developing. It is mainly on that I wish to speak this evening.
I have listened with care to what the Minister of Food has just said, and I am bound to say that I do not think he has been able to give a sufficient answer to that charge. He said, in effect, three things. He said, "We have given 'warnings, and the intelligent public will have known that the situation was becoming grave for some months past." By diligently selecting from the past issues of HANSARD and, with the generous permission of the Chair, by delving into the records of another place, he was able to quote some cases in which he or his colleagues had indicated that there were bad features in the situation. True. But it is also true that a number of things were said and done over the same period that pointed rather in the opposite direction.
If we take the net result of all that Government representatives had said in the last four or five months, it is certainly true that the British Government have not led us to expect a situation such as was disclosed on Tuesday of last week. I have one comment. The Members of this House are not less intelligent than the public generally, but I would ask the House to recall the bewildered dismay with which we all heard the statement of the Minister of Food on Tuesday of last week. It is quite clear that this dismay was not confined to the back benches. It was obvious that the news had taken the Leader of the Opposition quite as much by surprise. It was obvious that it was not confined to people on this side of the House; the dismay of supporters of the Government was, if anything, even more obvious. Indeed, along the Treasury Bench itself, there were visible signs of disturbance. In fact, I would like to know how many days it was before even the Minister of Agriculture had been fully informed of what the Minister of Food was going to disclose. I spoke of the net result. of all the statements that have been made. Reference has already been made to the letter of the Prime Minister of 25th January— that is, after the Minister of Food had returned from Washington, where the whole world cereal situation had been reviewed. The "Observer "— not a paper which is normally unfriendly


to the Government— remarked on that letter that its general tenor was, "No more sacrifices by the British public. Perhaps some increase of rations." It really is not fair to say that the country as a whole, or this House, had had real warning of the grave degeneration in the situation that had been taking place for some time.
The second thing the Minister of Food said this afternoon was that he could not tell us more because he was buying in a sellers' market. That, really, will not quite do. He has, last week and this, given us some very serious figures about the position in regard to wheat—of which he is an important buyer. As to our stocks—the disclosure of which he has, until last week, consistently resisted—a global figure might have been given just as well some months ago. It would not have prejudiced his purchases of individual commodities, as indeed is proved by the fact that last Tuesday and Wednesday the figures for which we had long been asking were given, as the corresponding figures had been given by the late Prime Minister as far back as March, when we were still engaged in two wars. If the Government had only given us, month by month, information of precisely the kind which they have given in the last fortnight, the whole situation would have been immensely clarified and the public would have been less surprised.
The third thing the Minister did was to give a list of his recent difficulties. Here I must confess that he did recite a number of very unfortunate disasters for which he is not responsible. Indeed, the scene on Tuesday of last week, which has been to some extent re-enacted this evening, was astonishingly like the first chapter of the Book of Job. There was the good man in adversity, afflicted by an incredible succession of unmerited misfortunes. He was surrounded by his friends—true Job's comforters—who were obviously discouraged and, it seemed, rather obviously asking themselves whether Job was really quite such a good man as they had thought. He told us of the succession of messengers of woe, each treading on the heels of the other—
 and while he yet spake there came also another.
He told us about droughts in North Africa and South Africa, droughts in the Argentine and Australia, miscalculations

of stocks in North America, bad weather in the South Pacific, monsoons and cyclones. All perfectly true. That was the picture presented to us as told in quick succession by the heralds of misfortune, just as in the case of Job. But were these disasters really so sudden, so simultaneous, so unpredictable, so unrelieved by any gleam of good fortune? I think not. Since last August the world has had pieces of good fortune, as well as bad. The early end of the war with Japan, and the consequent release of considerable resources; the discovery of unexpected stocks of sugar—

Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where that sugar is?

Sir A. Salter: The sugar to which 1 refer, which is considerable in quantity as the Minister knows, is in Java. There are at this moment difficulties about shipping it, but when it comes to a calculation of future world prospects, that sugar is properly countable. The world has had a rather exceptionally mild winter, which, in several ways, helps the food situation. And in the Autumn, America found that she had a good deal more meat supplies than she had earlier expected. She was able to make available for civilian consumption meat calculated officially at that time to be equivalent to something like 40 lbs. per head per annum more than the full peace-time consumption. Those were pieces of good fortune. Against them must, of course, be set the very real pieces of bad fortune which the Minister recounted to us. But neither the good fortune nor the bad came all in a lump. The truth is that there has been, for some time past, a deteriorating world food position. Why were we not told about it? Why was it not until the inescapable week of accounting came, when the hour of doom was struck—by Big Ben—that we were at last told what the real facts were? I think the Minister has shown that he does not quite understand what most of us mean when we say we want adequate information.

Sir B. Smith: I am not so dull.

Sir A. Salter: It is not enough to give us occasional sentences in speeches, whether of gloom or of hope, either unsupported by facts, or supported by a few selected facts, and unrelated to any accessible body of information in which the whole position is fairly and compre-


hensively set out. The British public is not unintelligent; it knows that when a British Government—any British Government—publishes a White Paper summarising the main facts of a world position, it is authoritative and accurate within the limits of human error. Had we had a White Paper in which all the main facts were stated by which we could test and judge what has been said, it would have been most valuable. That is what we want, and that is what some of us, including myself, have been asking for for over four months. We have been persistently but vainly pressing the Government to publish a White Paper giving all the main facts of the world food situation.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? Supposing it had been possible to arrange for a weekly or daily situation report of the Ministry to be published, what practical effect would that have had on the food situation?

Sir A. Salter: I will come to that. I am saying that I and others have been, for four months, pressing that there should be a publication of such facts as the Government had, comprehensive and brought up to date as the situation developed. When I first asked for that I was told "No." Then I was told "I will reconsider it" Then, to cite only a few of the many procrastinations, I was told "The possibility is not excluded." Then I was told "Preparations are being made for consultation with other Governments." At last, only last week, when the hour of reckoning had come, were we promised the report of the Emergency European Economic Committee. Information did then begin to come in, but not until 4th February onwards. The hon. and gallant Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain F. Noel-Baker) asked me what practical effect it would have had. First, it would have prevented the British public from being shocked as they have been.

Mrs. Braddock: Would it have helped production?

Sir A. Salter: I am about to answer the question already asked me by the hon. and gallant Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Captain Noel-Baker). The second effect it would have had

is that it would have revealed to America, the Dominions and the British public the gravity of the situation. The facts of the situation already grave ought to have been made available to the world, and had a White Paper been published they would have been made known through the hundreds of able journalists and broadcasters and commentators to the public of both hemispheres. Hon. Members have been told, and have been delighted to hear, what America is now doing, and the Dominions of Australia and Canada too. They know that President Truman has even talked of the reimposition of rationing, though it is much harder to reimpose rations than to retain existing ones. Is it not likely that if America had fully realised the position the American rationing would have been kept on longer with the important con-sequence in saving both meat and grain.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that all the information held back was the exclusive possession of the Government?

Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. What 1 am saying is that if action of that kind had been taken instead of merely sending private notes to the Dominion Governments and to the American Government, who had that information in their files, people everywhere would have better understood the situation that was developing. We in this part of the world are in a better position to provide such publicity than any other country, because of our central position and because of the reputation and prestige of British White Papers. That reputation has been maintained through every Government Administration. It is such that had we published fully and candidly the facts of the situation they would have been taken account of throughout the world. No one can state certainly, but I think it is extremely probable that international action of the kind now being taken might have been taken a good deal earlier with very great advantages to the whole world.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the facts now made available, should have been made available at the time when America gave up rationing?

Sir A. Salter: The whole of the facts as they were known at the time. The situation was already grave before. All Governments and, perhaps, above all


the two great Anglo-Saxon Governments act more vigorously and quickly if they are acting in the environment of an interested and informed public opinion. Had the facts been published and known at the time to which I refer, although I do not say all the action that is being taken in the now graver situation would have been taken, I think there is a great probability that some measures would have been taken which would have made the position much easier. The right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday last made personal reference to myself which left certain hon. Members with the impression I had been asking him to reduce British rations—

Sir B. Smith: I never said such a thing, and you know it.

Sir A. Salter: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of suggestions about reducing British stocks for the sake of sending British supplies to Germany, and he mentioned my name in that connection. May I say, in the first place, that I have never spoken of sending supplies to Germany, as distinct from Europe as a whole? In the second place, and this is really the point to which I would direct his attention, I have never asked him ever to reduce British rations or to reduce stocks so as to endanger those rations. Indeed, I will say this categorically, if His Majesty's Government had accepted in full every proposal I have ever made, British supplies would not be less at this moment by a pound. I would ask the Minister to quote me any instance to 'he contrary. I have suggested that lorries should be sent from Army bases, but that would have helped Europe and not hurt us. I asked him, when it came to the question of increasing British rations, to consider the needs of Europe. Increase of rations, unhappily, is not the question now—

Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that he asked me to send wheat to Germany?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: How can the right hon. Gentleman answer if hon. Members on both sides will not allow him the opportunity?

Sir A. Salter: I have never asked that wheat or anything else should be sent to Germany at the expense of our rations or

at the expense of any danger to the stocks of this country.

Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he pressed upon me that I had much too great stocks in this country and that I could release wheat for Germany?

Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. On the contrary, after refraining from making any request—in this House, I went to the right hon. Gentleman afterwards and said to him in private—" I have refrained from asking you at this moment to draw from our stocks for this purpose because, as I well know, in the uncertainty and irregularity of our imports, you must have a larger margin than at normal times."

Sir B. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? He came to my office with the late Miss Rathbone and said it there.

Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. I have no recollection of making any statement inconsistent with what I. have just said. I suggested that it might be possible to withdraw some supplies, without interfering with the' ordinary rationing system, from Army reserves. I asked him to try to get his colleagues to send some army lorries, and so on. I can quite specifically state that every time I have spoken in this House or elsewhere, I have said that I was against any reduction of British rations and any such reduction of our stocks as would endanger them.
1 am completely unconvinced by the reasons given by the Government for not publishing more fully and more candidly the information for which we have long asked I entirely agreed with the acting Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the well-known reluctance of Whitehall to give more information, as a possible basis for criticism, than they are obliged to. I have been acquainted with Whitehall for 40 years, sometimes as a civil servant and sometimes as a Minister, I know that there is this very natural disinclination to give information; I know that it is a recurring danger after a war, after a period of years when, obviously, information of vital public importance cannot be disclosed, and that it demands special efforts on the part of Parliament and Ministers to overcome habits and traditions of secrecy that grow at that time. I do not think that all Ministers have that habit of secrecy in the same


degree. I think that there is a difference between some and others.
It is a matter of great importance to us, as we go on from month to month and see all the things that we are not getting, to know whether, at least, we are going to have the facts about them. I said that there were differences. The Minister of Fuel is not getting his coal, but he is giving us the facts; the Minister of Health has, at least, promised to tell us about the houses he is not building; the President of the Board of Trade will, I am confident, tell us about the exports he is not getting—even with a certain relish. I do earnestly suggest that this is a matter of the utmost importance to this Parliament, not only in relation to food. The central treasure and main weapon of a free Parliament is its right to obtain information on everything of vital public interest of which no genuine public interest forbids disclosure. There are two things that would destroy this Parliament as surely as any Reichstag fire. One would be if Ministers came to believe that any reason or none for the policy they are pursuing, could be given to the House, because they have a disciplined and docile majority behind them. The other is that Parliament should ever relinquish this central principle, this fundamental right, to get information on anything of public interest except when public interest forbids. There have been some, if only occasional, signs recently of dangers in both those respects.
I well remember, when I was a young man, a colleague of mine writing a very reticent and rather evasive draft answer to a Question asked by a certain Captain Craig. A note which he wrote for a possible supplementary to the effect that there was more information but to give it might only stimulate Captain Craig to further inquiries was, through a clerical mistake, printed with the answer. Parliament was very much interested. The placards of London newspapers bore the words "Stimulating Captain Craig." I earnestly hope that if any. such danger recurs of the withholding of information, because it is likely to supply the ammunition that may be used against a Department, Parliament will be properly vigilant.
I come now to policy. There is little I have to suggest in the way of changes

in policy at this late hour, and I know the narrow limits in which any Government can move in a situation as grave as this, and in circumstances such as confront this country at the moment. There have been suggestions of one kind and another. On the larger issue, I do not regard it as to the discredit—I regard it as to the credit of this Government— of the three successive Governments—that British stocks were called upon to the extent of an average of about 200,000 tons a month, from March to December, very largely in Europe's and in the world's interest.

Sir B. Smith: One and a quarter million tons, to be exact.

Sir A. Salter: I was taking the figures from two answers given last week. I agree with the Minister of Food that, in the present circumstances, with the uncertainties of finance, strikes and other difficulties, the present stocks, as given last week, are getting near the danger point. I do not dissent from that. I also congratulate the Government on taking every international means they can at this moment, such as bringing forward their resolution before U.N.O.; contemplating, as I think they do, a food conference, and on trying, in every way to see that every country with anything to spare is dealing with this not as a national problem, or British problem only, but as a world problem. I would say with great seriousness that I do sincerely trust that, grave as our position is, we shall not concentrate solely on the position in this country. We are facing scarcity; other countries in Europe and other parts of the world are facing not scarcity but starvation There are regions and industrial centres in Europe—Germany, Austria, Budapest, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Western Russia—where the food is hardly more than half ours at present, and where supplies, even to maintain that low level, are in danger. I trust that all the way through the anxious months immediately before us, that will not be forgotten.

Mr. Keenan: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should go back to the position he advised some months ago, and give some of our meagre rations for the people in Germany?

Sir A. Salter: At no time in the last year have I ever suggested anything of the sort.

Mr. Keenan: What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest?

Sir A. Salter: What I have suggested is that I welcome the action of the British Government in joining with other countries in getting this treated as a world problem, so that the needs of other countries as well as our own will be considered.
I conclude with a few practical suggestions. I have already advocated that further allocation of food should be distributed in Europe by means of Army lorries. I believe that both in American and British camps there are lorries available, and in many of the worst regions transport is half the difficulty. I think the Government should go a little further in that direction and in searching military reserves. I know it has been done to some extent, and beyond this I will say no more at this moment. Next I was rather surprised that the Minister was so optimistic about fish. I think the present action is inadequate. But I believe that more fish could be obtained if priority is given not only in the release of more trawlers but reconditioning others, and to the manufacture of the apparatus that they require, such as nets.

Mr. Boothby: This is a most important point. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Government have stopped issuing permits for the purchase of nets?

Sir A. Salter: That reinforces what I am trying to say. 1 feel that more could be done by the Government in this respect. What could better compensate for the restricted supply of meat than an extra supply of fish? After six years of reduced fishing the seas around our coasts are teeming with fish. The men are available, given the physical facilities of trawlers and nets.
Next I am going to suggest that the Government should do everything they. can to encourage a greater importation of Continental fruit and vegetables. I am told that the importers of say tomatoes from the Canaries, are anxious to import more, and are prepared to take the risks involved in importing them and selling them within the retail price fixed by the Government. I do not know what it is that is causing the Government to restrict imports, but a very disturbing reflection occurred to me as I listened in this House on Monday to an hon. Member, a sup

porter of the Government, asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he would take careful account of the interests of the home producer in controlling the importation of market produce. I expected the Minister to say that whatever he would do for the home producer it would not be forcing up prices through scarcity, but what was the answer? It was that licences are required, and before they are given, there is a consultation between the Import Licensing Department and the Ministries of Food and Agriculture at which account is taken of the home producer before a licence is recommended.
In the past, members of the present Government and their supporters have bitterly accused the Members of the present Opposition of trying to cure a glut by creating a relative scarcity through restrictions. But is it not worse to aggravate a scarcity by doubling it? Why does the Minister of Agriculture think only of the interests of the home producer and not of those of the housewife? Does he think that prices are so dangerously low, that there is such a glut of food, that it is time for him to help the home producer by creating scarcity? I am surprised if he thinks anything of the sort.
The last among my immediate proposals is again to press for a White Paper of the kind I have been asking for for over four months. As I have spoken of that often before I will not press that suggestion further at the moment. I turn now to my final point.— [Hon. Members: "Lastly."]—I said lastly amongst my immediate proposals, but I am now looking beyond the immediate emergency. This winter emergency is still with us. During that emergency we shall have to do everything we can by whatever machinery already exists. But in time the winter will pass. Many will have died who need not have died, but the majority will still live and the problem of rebuilding the world is a problem not of months but of years. I again suggest, as I have often suggested before, with very considerable support, that there should be an improvement in the international machinery of planning publicity and co-ordination. A Supreme Economic Council, by which I mean a body more or less like the Combined Food Board in the countries composing it but with wider scope and greater


authority, should be brought into existence. The governments of the different countries of the world must not again be taken by surprise. If better arrangements are not made between now and next winter we shall again have a tragedy on a great scale which can still be prevented. I believe that if this Government and the other Governments mainly concerned, would improve their methods and their international machinery it will still be possible to shorten and reduce the human misery and the extra danger to world peace, that are otherwise inevitable.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) claims that the Government withhold information, but, as far as I have been able to observe since I have been in this House, that is inclined to be a habit with Governments. The Government of which the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was a Member withheld far more vital information from this country during the war, with the excuse that it was of military importance and must be kept secret. I continually sought information and the reply which I got was simply not true, because my right hon. Friend knows that the information I sought was not a war secret of vital importance and had nothing to do with the Army. I had every right to be given that information in public and not in private. That is a point which I may develop on another day. The right hon. Member for Oxford University disappointed me very greatly. I had hoped he would have developed much further the theme which he has so often developed in this House, sometimes supported by myself, on the food situation, particularly in Europe, but, apart from touching upon it, he did not impress the real facts of the situation upon the House.
I have listened, with some puzzlement, to practically every speech which has been made from the opposite side of the House. Members have complained that everything has been kept in the dark, and that there has not been sufficient information from the Government. Having said that, they went on to explain how they, individually, seemed to have many more facts than I ever knew, and were well informed on the

subject. The fact is that this has been another dishonest campaign of trying to discredit this Government. [Hon. Members: "No."] Certainly. Look at the Tory Press, and the ridiculous frame-ups which have been occurring in their columns every morning. I am not a person who suffers from no publicity. I have far too great a fan mail. The barometer of what is going on is revealed quickly in my post bag, and I can honestly say that except for half a dozen people, who write to me anonymously whenever anything happens, and blame it all on me, I have not had a single protest from anybody about the recent announcement of the Minister of Food. The whole campaign from the opposite side of the House is being made with the object of trying to create as much "stink" as possible.

Sir A. Salter: The hon. Gentleman has referred especially to me, and to a campaign from this side of the House. I suppose he refers to the campaign during the last nine days. He will do me the justice of remembering that not for the last nine days, but for the last four months, at least, I have been asking for information which I have not had, which the House has not had, and which the country has not had.

Mr. Stokes: Certainly, I will grant my right hon. Friend that; what is more, I supported him in asking for it, and it seems that we have had some of it today. But that is not what all the row is about in the Press. The arguments in the Press are based on quite different grounds, but I think the country has seen through them, and that the whole thing has gone off like a damp squib—

Colonel Erroll: I would like to inform the hon. Member that it is not a damp squib, as he ought to know from housewives.

Mr. Stokes: It is a matter of opinion whether the squib is damp, dry or wet, but at any rate the whole thing has gone completely flat. I was astonished at my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University taking up the point of the Prime Minister's letter of 25th January. Both he and another Member tried to imply that into that letter could be read a promise that everybody would have better rations this year.

Sir A. Salter: I did not do any such thing.

Mr. Stokes: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) not to go away.

Sir A. Salter: The Minister of Food said that Government warnings had been such that the country knew that the situation was very serious. On 25th January the impression made on the "Observer" was that there would, perhaps, be a little increase in the rations.

Mr. Stokes: All I can say to my right hon. Friend is that the acting Leader of the Opposition, opening the Debate today, referred to that same letter, and admitted that there was no right to read into it any promise of increased rations.

Mr. Eden: I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I was complaining that the Government had not warned us of an impending reduction.

Mr. Stokes: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no right to read the implication I have just mentioned into that letter, but those behind him took the exact opposite view. That is a matter of opinion. As one of those who was responsible for causing the Prime Minister to make that statement, I can only say that, while we accepted it with some disappointment, none of us thought there would be any increase in rations, but only that there might be a different variety of food for the people. Great play was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and another Member behind him, about the apparent representations they made to the Government about the importance of not calling up young men from the farms. I do not know whether they made representations or not, and I have not the slightest idea whether the Government took the action they did only because the right hon. Gentleman and his friends made representations. But I do think the Prime Minister acted with commendable promptitude in deferring those calling-up notices. Compare that with the representations made by some of us, in secret and in public, when we were in Opposition, to the then Prime Minister, that men 'should not be taken from the mines because it would lead us to disaster. Nothing at all was done then. If notice had been taken of our advice at

that time, the country would not have been in such a desperate position in regard to coal as it is today. I therefore congratulate the Government on the promptitude with which they acted in this matter. It is not often that I congratulate the Government about anything. I am particularly anxious not to take up more time than usual—

Earl Winterton: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give us all three acts of the farce.

Mr. Stokes: There is at least some merit in being entertaining. The main reason why I rose was to point out that the whole of this campaign has really obscured the main issue, the main tragedy, which is in front of us. I refer to the situation outside this country. While we are thinking about ourselves I want to remind the House of the facts. A very important document was printed the other day, which came from the Emergency Economic Committee for Europe, and of which the Press took practically no notice. It was published an full in only one paper, the "Manchester Guardian," and trivially referred to in other newspapers, while all this "blah "was going on about dried egg. The report said that during the next six months or more 140,000,000 people in Europe would have a ration of a calorific value of less than 2,000 per day, that 100,000,000 people would have less than 1,500 calories, that there were groups of people who would have as few. as 800 calories, and that over 40,000,000 would have between 1,500 and 2,000 calories per day.
In my travels the other day I picked up a prisoner of war, a British officer who had been incarcerated in Germany for three and a half years. He said that he had had Red Cross parcels until the early days of 1945. Then the parcels failed to arrive, and his rations also failed to arrive to a considerable extent, and he told me that he reckoned that the calorific value of the food in his camp went as low as 1,500 per day. He said, "I got so weak that I went to bed, and stayed there until we were relieved later in the year by the entry of British Forces." I want to impress upon the House the situation which is facing 100,000,000 people at the present time, while we are squabbling about a bit of dried egg. That Committee's report went on to state that there are only four countries where the


calorific value of the daily ration will be above 2,500—Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The ration here, I believe, is of the order of 2,800 calories per day.
That is very nearly twice as much as 100,000,000 people in Europe have to survive on, and even the cuts in March will leave us better off than we were for six months after VE-Day. I have not heard any hon. Member opposite refer to the improvements that have been made. It is all very well to say that the cuts have horrified people; that is only because they have been presented the wrong way by the national Press. Nobody has mentioned the fact that suet is now obtainable on points, which makes a very considerable difference. Nobody has mentioned the increased milk ration, which gives more to adults earlier this year than last year. Nobody has referred to the fact that this crisis has at least brought us good bread and done down the millers' combine, which is most satisfactory.

Mr. Boothby: Does not the hon. Member mean bad bread?

Mr. Stokes: No; I mean that we have got back to where we were before the percentage extracted was reduced from 85 to 80. One day I would like to tell the House the story of how it was decreased from 85 to 80, quite contrary to the recommendations of all those who had anything to do with giving advice on nutrition to the Government. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) argued about conserving our dollar resources. I agree with him. I hope the Chancellor will take note of these remarks, because while they do not have any immediate bearing on the Debate, they have some bearing on the dollar exchange. The hon. Member talked about tobacco, a matter on which I have put questions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend does not impose a restriction on the importation of American tobacco. I know his argument is that everybody likes the stuff the Americans send over here, but that is all a matter of education. No self-respecting American ever smokes a Virginian cigarette; he smokes a blended cigarette. America imports from Turkey something in the order of£10 million

worth of tobacco a year. No doubt they put some of it into their own tobacco and send it here, and we pay dollars for it. America never takes goods from us in any quantity worth speaking about. I have customers in Turkey who wish to buy machinery, and I cannot sell them machinery because they have no money. Why should not the Chancellor arrange this business in an orderly fashion so that we take£10 million worth of tobacco from Turkey and send Turkey£10 million worth of engineering supplies? Surely, that would be common sense. The Chancellor now has a magnificent opportunity, because we are now in the brave situation in which the country will take anything within reason, especially when people realise that it will be to our permanent good in establishing yet another important export market.
I wish the Minister of Food were here— it does not really matter. That remark was perhaps a little unfortunate. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is present. I wish to refer to stocks, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University referred. I have been with him in pressing for knowledge of the figures. I should be most interested to know what stocks of food there were in this country on 31st December, 1938. We have been told that on 31st December, 1939, they were 3,000,000 tons. That was at a moment when we were expecting the war and the U-boat campaign, and our stocks had been presumably built up. On 31st December, 1945. the stocks had sunk from 6,000,000 tons, the figure on 25th March, 1945, to 4,200,000 tons, an amount still nearly 50 per cent.in excess of the stocks which we were holding at a time when we were expecting the war and the U-boat campaign. I would hazard a guess that in 1938 and before, the stocks were probably not more than 1,000,000 tons or 1,500,000 tons.
The probability is that we are now holding in the larder three times as much in reserve as we normally would in peacetime conditions. If that be so, I ask the Chancellor and the Parliamentary Secretary how in their own consciences they can justify hoarding this food when there are millions of people starving in Europe? There is no reason for it whatever. I understand the grain position. 1 am not speaking specifically of any particular type of food, but of the general stocks


which, the Prime Minister said, amount to 4,200,000 tons. 1 claim that we are holding in the larder nearly three times as much as we did in ordinary peacetime conditions. We have no right—and the British public, if they knew it, would not stand for it for one moment—to store that up against a rainy day when millions of our brothers and sisters across the' water are dying of hunger. I ask that that matter be looked into at once.
I hope that something more will be done to extend, and establish over a longer period ahead, the very fine work that is being done by U.N.R.R.A. all over Europe. That work is vital, and I do not think the House realises how insecure the whole of the U.N.R.R.A. organisation is. The funds will run out in about three months' time. The American contribution has not yet been re-voted to cover the period to the end of the year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): We have paid our bit.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I know, but I am ventilating this matter because it is important. Even so far as our bit is concerned, there is no certainty that U.N.R.R.A. will continue to function in Europe after 31st December of this year. From what I have seen, and I am sure from what every hon. Member who has been abroad has seen, it is obvious that the necessity for the work of U.N.R.R.A. in Europe will last for two or three years to come. It is impossible for the organisation to establish itself properly if it does not know how long it is to last and cannot plan ahead. I urge the Government to make the maximum possible representations to all the leading Governments concerned to put U.N.R.R.A. on a firm footing until at least the end of 1947, between now and which time we shall have an opportunity of looking round. U.N.R.R.A. is doing magnificent work and that work will be very greatly helped, and salvation brought into the hearts and lives of mil lions of people, if we ease the lock on our larder- door and let out some of the hoard of stuff which we are holding quite unnecessarily.

7.28 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hare: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling on me in this most important Debate, and

I ask the House for its customary kindly indulgence to a Member about to undergo the ordeal of making a maiden speech. My only claim to fame, perhaps, is that geographically I surround the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). I would like to congratulate him on the fact that he is having no troubles in his constituency in the way of reactions as to what has happened in the present food crisis. Next door to his constituency there is considerable agitation on this subject.
I do not propose to express any opinion as to where the blame lies for our present grave food situation or to stress, as others have rightly done, the grave anxiety which the nation feels at the sudden and unexpected fashion in which these new hardships have been imposed upon it. This ugly situation is upon us, and whether we like it or not, we must accept it, and do our best to find constructive and practical ways out of it. I hope the Government will answer what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). We on this side are not approaching this matter in a partisan spirit. We are making a number of constructive suggestions, and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered, and take prompt action to make them effective.
Since the increase of food supplies from abroad must be, for some considerable. time, limited by the fact that supplies are scarce and our own financial position very adverse, I feel that the important thing we should do in this Debate is to satisfy ourselves that we are really taking all possible steps to produce the maximum amount of food that we can secure from the resources of these islands. The Prime Minister has called his new campaign "The Battle for Bread," and I consider that is a very fair and sound name. If that battle for bread is to be conducted efficiently it must be conducted with no less zeal than any military operation of the war. That means that higher priorities should be placed in the hands of the Ministries of Food and Agriculture than they possessed even perhaps during the war years.
I want to put four points to the House. Three of them have been touched on and will probably be developed further during the Debate. The fourth I shall dwell upon.


for rather longer. The success or failure of this drive for increased food production must depend ultimately upon the farmer. and one thing which I would stress is that the farmer is an individualist and very much of a human being He requires to be told what is needed of him and he needs considerable notice of what he has to produce. Anything more fatal than changing an agricultural policy halfway through a farming year, and expecting to get good results from a farming community, cannot be imagined. But that, I am afraid, is what has happened owing to the fact that the decision of the Government this autumn that extra wheat was not required has been followed, because of the grave situation which has come upon us so unexpectedly, by this last-minute, frantic appeal that the farmers throughout the country should grow as much wheat as possible. Secondly, it is obvious that if we wish to produce a particular commodity in agriculture, in greater quantities than other commodities, we must do what we can to make it attractive to grow that particular commodity. The failure of the Government to re-introduce the wheat subsidy of£4 an acre when they made this last recent appeal has, I think, been most unfortunate.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said, anybody who has any connection with agriculture realises that the gravest threat to the industry is shortage of labour. Men are not coming back from the Forces in the numbers that we expected; new blood is not being recruited rapidly. There is a variety of reasons for that, but far and away the most important is that the countryside requires more modern cottages with modern amenities, and it requiries those cottages as quickly and as urgently as possible. I feel that one should acknowledge with appreciation the announcement that was made in another place that the Government are earmarking 4,000 building and engineering specialists for agricultural buildings. What I would like to ask the Government is whether they are prepared, at the same time, to release more building material, and to speed up the granting of the hundred and one licences which are necessary before any large-scale construction of country cottages can even begin. I am certain that if the Government really axe determined to ask for more food and to press

this food production campaign, they must take active steps to give the building of agricultural cottages considerable priority in their new housing programme.
Fourthly, and this is my main point, I want to ask the House whether it is satisfied that we are in fact making the maximum use of land that could be made available for food production. I think, if the question is examined even for a moment, that the answer is emphatically, "No." I maintain that there are thousands of acres of valuable agricultural land at the moment that are not being used for the purpose of growing food, and if the case I am making is borne out by the facts, I would appeal to the Government to make arrangements whereby the Ministry of Agriculture should be asked to absorb the large areas of surplus land that are at the moment held by the Ser-vice Ministries.
Let me take the War Office first. On 10th December last, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, in answer to a Question which I put to him, stated that the War Office held some 5,000,000 acres of land for training purposes. Of that 5,000,000 acres, 1,000,000 was retained because of the presence on it of unexploded missiles, which had to be cleared before this land could be safely handed back for agricultural purposes. Another 1,000,000 acres was slowly being made available for release. The remaining 3,000,000 acres was being retained for current training purposes. The Secretary of State for War continued by saying that this figure of 3,000,000 acres, would be gradually reduced from time to time, as and when he was in a position to decide what the eventual training requirements of the new Army would be.
Here is a vast potential addition to the nation's agricultural holding, yet the process of handing over, despite the urgency of the limes, has been painfully slow, and perhaps the House will allow me to give one detailed example of the kind of thing that is happening. The Orford battle area in East Suffolk, which I happen to know well, was requisitioned in 1942. It consisted of 7,500 acres of land, over 70 per cent. of which was either in arable cultivation or under grass when taken over. It is typical of many similar areas throughout the country. From it, at very short notice, 480 men, women and children were evacuated. They were


evacuated from 150 habitable houses and, in passing, I would emphasise that those 150 habitable houses represent a very valuable housing asset today, especially when one reads that the London County Council, the greatest housing authority in these islands, has announced that up to the end of last week they have succeeded in producing only four new permanent houses since V.E. Day. Despite definite promises made to these good people by representatives of both the War Office and the Regional Commissioner that immediately the war was over they would be allowed to return to their homes, the War Office still retain the land, giving as their excuse the same reason given to me by the Secretary of State of War, namely, that the Government do not yet know what the final training requirements of the new Army are going to be.
I submit that such indecision in these urgent times of threatened starvation are indefensible, and I do not think that it can be upheld. I suggest that there are alternatives which can be easily gone into; that in this country there is sufficient moor and heath land that could be made available for Army training, and that provision for this could profitably be made at the expense of the grouse and stags which now inhabit these areas. In addition, in Germany, where our Occupation Forces must remain for some considerable time, large new training areas could be provided at no expense to the food production of this nation.
So much for the War Office. I now turn to the Air Ministry. I understand that that Ministry last year held 240,000 acres of land suitable for food production. This figure excluded all land on which buildings, perimeter tracks and runways have been constructed. At the end of November last year, out of these 240,000 acres, 40,000 acres, or one-sixth of the total, have been let for limited farming purposes, entirely for grazing. Since then, a further 25,000 acres, comprising 43 grass airfields and some 60 concrete runway aerodromes, may, I understand, be released for agricultural use. In other words, we shall see 65,000 of these 240,000 acres being farmed in some fashion by the summer of 1946. I suggest that the acreage which has been released is not adequate. We should remember that last year these Air Ministry holdings of agricultural land

were providing for the needs of our own Royal Air Force at the height of its striking strength. In addition to this; it was providing for thousands of United States' Air Force heavy bombers and fighters, which were based on this country. I submit that a far greater acreage could have been made available than is, in fact, now proposed. In addition, there are two hampering restrictions on the land which is handed over. I must worry the House for a few minutes by mentioning what these restrictions are. They apply to concrete-runwayed airfields. The first is that, if the airfield is let for grazing, it is the responsibility of the farmer who takes the grazing rights of the air-field to erect fencing to prevent any animal wandering on to any concreted or tarmac surface. The official mind has decided that manure is damaging to concreted or tarmac surfaces.
The effect "of the restriction, when worked out, is that about 15 miles of fencing would be required for an average airfield. Such a position is ridiculous. Owing to lack of labour and material the farmer cannot undertake such a task, and the result is that the maximum use is not being made of these airfields. [Laughter.] The Lord President of the Council may laugh, but this is a fact that I have discovered, and the figures are accurate. It is not a laughing matter. I would like to appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those who have seen airfields in this country and overseas severely damaged by air attack. They will have seen gaping craters right across the runways, but yet with efficient organisation and hard work those airfields have been repaired overnight and made serviceable. The official mind ought not to allow the fact that cow dung corrodes concrete surfaces, to prevent the unfortunate British housewife being given more milk, beef and mutton.
The second restriction which applies to these large, runwayed airfields is that when the land is to be. ploughed a 75 yard interval must be left on each side of every runway, and a 75 foot gap must be left adjacent to every perimeter track or dispersal. The effect of that is that, when ploughing takes place, out of the total quantity of land which could be ploughed, a proportion varying from 90 to 50 per cent. is rendered completely sterile and is not used. The reason given is that top


soil, drainage difficulties and so on, make it necessary to impose a restriction, should the aerodrome need to be reclaimed at short notice for flying purposes. I am informed by responsible farming opinion that this is totally untrue. In actual fact, the majority of this type of airfield are probably better drained than the average agricultural holding.
I have tried, I am afraid very inexpertly and with far too much nervousness, to make one or two helpful points. I have tried also to show the Government that there are certain ways in which they could definitely help us now in this drive for more food. I have attempted to show that there is red tape and lack of direction in certain quarters which is holding up the maximum use of our agricultural land. It all boils down to the principle which my party is always trying to impress upon hon. Members on the Government side, that they should put first things first. I humbly submit that the status of the Ministries of Food and of Agriculture should be raised, in the Government's scheme of things. The Government have very great responsibility in this matter to the long-suffering and hard-pressed people of this country. They can do much to help, and I am sure that in any practical measures which they are prepared to take to that end they will receive the wholehearted co-operation of Members on this side of the House.

7.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: It is my very pleasant task to offer the congratulations of this House to the hon. and gallant Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare) upon the very excellent, able and constructive maiden speech which he has-just made. He referred to nervousness. I can assure him, as one who made his maiden speech nearly seven months ago, that if he suffers no more nervousness than he showed tonight, he will not have very much difficulty in the future. I do offer him the congratulations of this House on a most experienced, constructive and commanding speech.
Before he departed for dinner, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) referred to a dishonest campaign which had been carried on regarding the question of the world food shortage. I speak as a Liberal in this House, and I dissociate myself from

any such dishonest campaign, if indeed it exists; I am not sure that it does. We Liberals have the self-imposed task of attempting to take a balanced view of occurrences in the political field, and we will continue to do so. It is a very difficult job, but I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that we have carried out the pledge which we made at the beginning of this Session, that we would support the Government on all matters where we considered that they were working in the best interests of the community, and that where we criticised, our criticism would be constructive. I think that on the whole we have been friendly to the Government but I also feel that certain valid criticisms were made both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), which have not, in the main, been entirely refuted from the Government Bench. As far as the world is concerned, there is a food crisis, but as far as this country is concerned, there is more than that—there is, in our opinion, a crisis over the machinery of government. I feel that that must be recognised by hon. Members opposite. We do not seek to apportion the blame, but we do ask Members opposite to draw the lesson.
I do not doubt that the immediate problem of the food shortage can to some extent be solved by a series of hectic and unpleasant improvisations, or indeed by sacrifices on the part of the long-suffering British people and others. Many of those sacrifices would undoubtedly have been necessary, regardless of what had or had not been done by the Government. But I think that a case could be made that in the time at their disposal the Government could have done more to have prevented the seriousness of the food situation as it affects this country and other countries for which we are responsible. The question really is one of guilty or not guilty? Of what are the Government not guilty? I am quite definite about it; first of all, they are obviously not guilty with regard to the world food shortage. Everybody will agree with that. I do not think they are guilty of failure to issue general warnings to this House and to the country, but they have not always been given in the right way or with the right emphasis. We have not had the specific information which we require, though I fully appreciate that some


of the vital specific information only very recently became available. I fully appreciate the extraordinary difficulties, both economic and administrative, with which the Government have been faced by the abrupt end of lend-lease, and the dreadful possibility of even further delay in the ratification of the American loan. That is a very difficult problem. Apart from anything else, there is the uncertainty of knowing when the loan is to be ratified, and that is a psychological factor which must be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, the Government must accept responsibility for serious failure to co-ordinate certain important Government Departments. I put this forward in the hope that the lesson will be learned, not only on the question of food, but with regard to other matters. There is a failure to establish a flexible type of machinery which could act quickly, in order to keep pace with events, instead of lagging behind. I deplore the tendency of the Government to think that they can run planned economy with the old Conservative machinery which they inherited from 20 years of Conservative rule. I do not believe it can be done; henceforth much more attention must be paid to the machinery of government. That is why I said there is a lesson to be learned. There is a lesson in this very crisis.
I also believe that to some extent there has been a very serious mishandling of the public. As the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) said, "there are many ways in which one woos the opposite sex." There is also the attitude which Ministers in general adopt towards the public, and in that I think there is need for improvement. The public have put this Government into power, I do not argue the question of a mandate, but they elected the Government not as their masters but as their servants, and they do not expect a dictatorial attitude on the part of Ministers who say, "I have given you this, I have sent a ship here, I have done this." I acquit the. Minister of any desire whatever to be a dictator, but it is the impression which is created, and there is a great need for improvement in the relationship between the Government and the people. It seems a very odd thing to say of the Labour Party, but it is true.
There are many examples of lack of co-ordination. I would like to deal with one or two of them; some have already been mentioned. We have had repeated warnings, by the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Food, and many others, that there was an impending world food shortage. I well remember those warnings, but we have not had specific information. With all those general warnings, issued from mid-1945 onwards, we have had the Minister of Agriculture taking at that Box what I would call a complacent attitude towards food production. That complacency is typified by the answer which he gave on 15th October, about the reduction of the wheat acreage payment from£4 to£2. This is very interesting when it is considered that the Minister of Food himself said that the gravity of the wheat position was not known until the autumn. It could not have been too late last autumn to do anything about the Spring sowing, but even so, on 15th October the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question said:
I am anxious that all suitable land coining in turn for wheat should be so planted, and I should like to see the 1945 acreage maintained. But the growing of wheat on unsuitable land... would no longer be justifiable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 703.]
That is what I call a complacent attitude which could only have been due to one of two things, either ignorance or stupidity. Now the Minister of Agriculture is not a stupid man, therefore he must have been kept in ignorance. I can see no other reason. If he had known the facts about the food situation surely, in answer to this question, he would have given those facts and would have said, "Despite those facts, we are still convinced that our policy is' right." He did not, he merely said, "We are perfectly satisfied with the 1945 acreage." He had no right to be satisfied with it, and something should have been done about it.
Here I would like to deal with the lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture when there is a shortage of food, as there will be for some time in this country, because we cannot produce all the food we want. In those circumstances of food scarcity, the Minister of Agriculture is really the factory manager for the Minister of Food. We have not had that co-ordination which, to my mind, is vital between


the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture. I still think it is fantastic that we should find in the Cabinet the factory manager, but the boss himself is excluded from it. Therefore, I say, there is a serious lack of co-ordination. In fact, if hon. Members should get 'flu, it would be a very good thing to read through HANSARD while they are in bed and see, through a period of four or five months, the lack of co-ordination exemplified by the different answers which are given from different Ministries that should pull together.
I would like to turn to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour. They are two Departments very much interrelated at the present time. They must be co-ordinated, but I do not believe they have been. We have had continual complaints from all sides of the House that sufficient priority has not been given to the release of agricultural workers from the Forces. Yet it was only after considerable pressure that in December agricultural workers were included in the Class B scheme. The cream was knocked off that by calling up 8,000 of the existing workers. I think I am right in saying that agriculture has lost 100,000men during the war, and to call up 8,000 at a time when the country is being generally warned of a food shortage shows either a very bad decision or a tremendous lack of co-ordination. About a fortnight ago, on 23rd January, we had. the news from the Minister of Agriculture in answer to a Question that only 490 men had been released under Class B individual specialist arrangements up to 31st December. He went on to say that the ordinary block release system had not had time to operate. Only 490 men had been released under the individual specialist system, and all hon. Members know the continual demands coming to them to assist in getting men to get land into production to employ more men to get more food. I do not say this was a wrong decision, but I do not believe that there had been sufficient co-ordination before that decision to allow only 490 men out of the Forces had been reached.
I want to deal with the Prime Minister's deferment of 8,000 men. The Government have a case to answer there, that that should have been done when the Minister of Food knew that there was to be a shortage of food and on his own

showing he knew that at the end of last year. I do not know whether he advised the Minister of Labour, but it does not look like it to us or to the public, and we have a right to know. I think probably the best example of lack of co-ordination was displayed by the Minister of Labour himself on 5th February, which was the day on which the food statement was made Half an hour before statements were made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour announced in this House, in answer to a Question, that only 1,529 of the 18,000 agricultural workers had been released under the block system by 15th January. He then said that he did not think the block release scheme was going too slowly, and that every effort was being made to push it along. But, surely, if he had been in the confidence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, he should have realised that it was going along too slowly—too slowly compared with the other events which were taking place. I do not believe the Minister of Labour could have given that answer if he really knew the facts, and, therefore, to us it appears as if there is a very serious lack of co-ordination between the various Government Departments.
I do not want to labour the question of the Treasury and dried egg, but I will say that the decision as to how dollars are to be spent is one which is far above the responsibility of the Treasury alone. We must ensure, particularly if we get this loan, that our dollar expenditure is very carefully co-ordinated, and that the decisions which are made as to how the dollars should be expended are taken after the most careful consideration and co-ordination. Furthermore, I think that, after what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge said about films, there is a case for a serious revision of the present dollar expenditure to see if we cannot get more value for the meagre dollars that we have.
1 do not want to labour the question of the Prime Minister's letter. That has been dealt with, and it seems to have had a different effect upon different people. I think the Government can morally be acquitted, when one reads that letter, of having misled the people in that particular respect, but I do say that there is lack of efficient co-ordination and planning, and that insufficient attention has been paid to the needs of agriculture, so that


the farmer and the farm worker will now be called upon to make additional sacrifices. They are bound to, they will do it, but why have we to ask them merely because we do not get the co-ordination and the flexible machinery to keep pace with events in a modern world? It will call for hectic improvisation in many fields. Today, instead of having an orderly system to deal with these problems—in so far as we can deal with them we are not asking for miracles—we shall have a series of improvisations throughout the country.
I want to say this to hon. Members opposite—I am afraid they will not like it. I do not want to make party capital out of it, I merely want to try and draw the lesson of this crisis as it affects this country. I believe that the key to government in a modern State is comprehensive planning, with the emphasis on the word "comprehensive." I believe that we, as Liberals, approach planning from a different standpoint from hon. Members on the other side of the House. Planning to us does not just mean nationalisation and the day-to-day interference with Government Departments in the lives of the people. We do not call that planning. We support a great deal of nationalisation and public ownership, but we do not make the mistake of thinking that nationalisation is planning. It is not. Nationalisation is just one of many methods which are used to develop a comprehensive plan. I am not advocating the Conservative argument of putting nationalisation before everything else—I do not think that holds water for a minute—but I do say this: You can do two things at once, but if you are going to give the people of this country the sort of economic and social wellbeing they want—and that means food and houses and employment—then you must, first of all, have the comprehensive plan into which your nationalisation and your other methods fit properly.
It is the comprehensive plan that we are lacking at the moment. It is most important that we should not think, every time we pass a Bill nationalising something, that that means planning. It does not at all. We have not the framework yet, and it is the framework that we want. I believe it is on the comprehensive planning side that this Government at present are lamentably weak. There is a lack of breadth of vision which is desperately required to meet the problems of the modern

State. I am not suggesting that the Conservative Party would have done better. I am not even suggesting at the moment that we would have done better. I am merely pointing to the fact that there is this lack of breadth of vision which would be required from anybody occupying the Government Front Bench
Comprehensive planning means accepting full responsibility for ensuring the economic and social wellbeing of the people and giving them food, housing, employment and proper social services. And it means taking the people into the Government's confidence and telling them what the plan is. This is where I believe the Government have gone wrong, because they have told the people they are going to nationalise certain things—and have got a good cheer—but they have not given them a lead in the direction which they require. They have not told them what the whole plan is. That is where there is a very great weakness to which we have continually drawn attention. This comprehensive plan has never been developed and thought out for the simple reason that this country is being governed today by a Cabinet of Ministers who are over-burdened with departmental duties. It is like trying to run an army with a host of over-worked staff captains and no chief-of-staff. Nobody is doing the thinking. There are plenty of people doing the acting, plenty of people putting in long hours, and doing it extremely well and working as hard as they can. But who, while all this action is taking place, is thinking ahead? Where everything is in the hands of a Cabinet of Ministers who are over-burdened and over-worked and there is no one thinking ahead, rigidity is the rule and no longer is there a flexible machine which can deal with the various changes which take place and which have to be made as the exigencies of the situation arise. There is not the co-ordination which is necessary in order to plan the affairs of the country for the future.
We have continually drawn attention to the fact that there must be instituted—and this is really a most serious point— in the machinery of the Government, a small inner Cabinet of Ministers free from departmental duties and charged with the task of making a comprehensive plan, and of establishing machinery for coordinating the various Government Departments. They should have executive


responsibility for developing that plan, and, above all, for explaining to the people how the plan is to be developed. We have not got that at the present moment, and there is no one today who is doing the thinking. There is no one who is free from departmental responsibility. In times of scarcity the first essential is to have someone looking ahead and laying down the priorities. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the tremendous weaknesses which have been shown to exist in our national machinery not only for dealing with food, but with full employment. We are going to have a catastrophe from which the country will not recover for years, with no one sitting down and thinking and planning and too many people dashing about. I do not mind them dashing about, providing someone else is doing the thinking. That is vital if we are to play our part in any world organisation dealing with food, full employment, or the improvement of the standards of living of the people. They are the people who will know what is happening. They will have the large co-ordinated picture before them and be able to speak with authority in the various organisations to which I hope we shall commit ourselves. I am not going to deal now with the international side of the danger, but I would say to the Minister and the Members of the Government, that I hope they will learn from the mistakes which they are making. I believe that if they do that they will prove to be the most experienced Government we have ever had.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Webb: The hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers) suggested that we on these benches might not like certain observations he was about to make on the need for economic planning. We found them quite acceptable, and in no sense did we dislike them. It is indeed accepted on these benches, and, I hope, understood on the benches opposite, that, nationalisation is only an element in a comprehensive economic plan. But his speech raised points of some substance and he made certain statements with which I hope to deal before I sit down.
I want to deal with certain points made, by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). He is a man of

tremendous experience and quite considerable ability, to whom the House pays serious attention. But I am bound to say that on this occasion I felt he was less than just to his own high reputation. I just could not accept his thesis that in some magical way the comprehensive issue of information would have eased the problem of the lack of food. He based his supposition on the belief that President Truman evidently did not know what the Minister of Food in this country knew. One can hardly accept that. One must assume that the Government of the United States of America have at least as much information of trends and tendencies in these matters as our own Government. 
The Senior Burgess for Oxford, I thought too, was unfair in comparing the Minister of Fuel and Power with the Minister of Food, to the disadvantage of the Minister of Food, in the matter of supplying information. He overlooked the fact that they are dealing in entirely different fields. The production and supply of coal are an entirely domestic matter. The Minister of Food has to deal with a situation which is international in all its aspects and consequences, and I thought it unfair of the Senior Burgess for Oxford to make that comparison, and wholly unconvincing.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the hon. Member being quite fair to the Senior Burgess for Oxford University? Surely he said that the Anglo-Saxon countries acted under the pressure of public opinion, much more so than at any other time. He made it quite clear to me that if this House, the American Congress and our people had known through the Press and the B.B.C., pressure would have been brought to bear for action to be taken. That is what he said.

Mr. Webb: I recollect that quite well, but that was only part of his case. The answer I am making is that even if that had been so," and I do not accept it as necessarily being so, it would not have grown one grain more wheat. That is the answer to the point made by the Senior Burgess.
I do not want to develop that argument. I want to congratulate the Opposition on their rather belated discovery that the State has some responsibility for feeding the people. It would have been better had they made the' discovery in the lean years between the wars, when the people


of this country were, as they are now, without sufficient food. Not for the same reason, not because food was not there, but because they had not the purchasing power to acquire that food. It is true that many millions of people in those years were without food, as they are now, but I have no recollection of any great agitation in the Conservative Party to remedy that. It is a matter of great encouragement to us to find that at this late hour they have discovered that the community, through the responsibility of Government, carries some degree of responsibility for the adequate feeding of the people.
I have no great complaint against the spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) addressed himself to this problem. On this side of the House we appreciated the concession he made that this had to be approached in a non-partisan spirit. I am bound to say that his attitude was in stark contrast to the attitude adopted by many sections of his party, and many newspapers supporting his party, since this matter became a public issue in recent weeks. Some people seem to have seized on this situation as nothing more than a useful chance to "smear "the Government. I am a newspaper man, or was, and I hesitate to criticise newspaper policy, but in this business I feel that certain newspapers have been guilty of disreputable conduct for partisan ends. They have been seeking to exaggerate the situation for the purpose of bringing the Government into disrepute. I think their conduct in the matter is deplorable and brings our profession into great disrepute.
I have listened carefully to the whole of this Debate, and for the most part the complaint against the Government is that there has not been sufficient warning by the Government, that the Government have failed to provide adequate information of these tendencies. But I repeat what has surely already been made clear from this side of the House, that repeated warnings have been given, warnings that any person of normal intelligence could well comprehend, warnings that could easily have been seen by anybody but the deliberately blind. In August last, when the Foreign Secretary made his first speech in this House, he said that we were on the eve of a great world crisis in food.
It is complained that the language adopted by Ministers in these matters has not been blunt enough. I cannot think how the Foreign Secretary could have been more blunt in making a declaration of that kind. A month later he repeated his warning, and appealed to the Allies for concerted action to deal with this problem. Another month later the Foreign Secretary repeated his warning in quite unmistakable terms. The Prime Minister, on 16th August, in our first Debate in this House, said:
 It must be realised there is a world shortage of these "—
meat, fats and sugar—
 due to a number of different causes."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 103.]
The Minister of Food himself, as I think he has shown, has clearly acquitted himself of the charge that he failed to give the House a comprehensive general warning of the kind of situation that was developing.
Even if these warnings had not been given it does not, in my judgment, lie with the Opposition to bring charges of failure -to speak the truth, because we have had in recent weeks repeated attacks from that side of the House against the alleged gloom of Ministerial statements. Repeatedly we have had Ministers condemned because they were not giving the people that kind of scintillating and exciting oratory which Members on that side of the House believe to be necessary. They have pressed unceasingly for some relaxation of our Spartan standards. Their newspapers have excelled themselves in demanding a lessening or a relaxation of austerity. In view of statements made repeatedly from those benches, they should be the last to condemn any failure to make the warnings even more precise than they have been. The truth is that austerity is the product of inescapable and grave circumstances. It was not devised in the Cabinet room. It was and is compelled by 'the grim facts of a disturbed world, as we now clearly see. If certain hon. and right hon. Members opposite recollect now some of the statements they have made in recent months in this House they should hesitate to intervene in this Debate with any complaint against the Government.
But the problem before us is not to attribute responsibility. It is to find


remedies, to find solutions so far as they can be found. If the Opposition are, as they claim to be, the patriotic party, they will now apply themselves to that task rather than to the meaner task of making partisan points. It is necessary that we should get this matter in perspective so far as this country is concerned. It is true that our conditions are harsh. After six years of war it is a great burden—our housewives in particular find it a great burden—to face the daily irksome job of trying to get fresh meals and varied food. Yet we must remember we are better off than many millions of people scattered round the world. Over 130,000,000 people in Europe exist on two-thirds of our ration, and about half that number on about half our rations. We cannot dismiss these circumstances as irrelevant; we have to take them into account. Both honour and self-interest require that we in this country give them attention—honour because many of these people fought with us during the war, and self-interest, because clearly we cannot escape the consequences of pestilence if that were to follow famine. In our own Empire, for which we must take responsibility, there is a grave situation. As the Minister pointed out earlier today, the facts regarding India are almost staggering. It is to the credit of this Government that while not neglecting every opportunity to safeguard the rights of our own people, they have sought, in the true tradition of our democratic politics, to take the lead in securing concerted action. Even if others are more tardy, if others are not so forthcoming in these matters, it seems to me unthinkable that we in this country should sit back and say that we wash our hands entirely of what is going on in Europe and other countries.
On this matter of the overseas food position I would like to ask the Government one or two things. First, could we be told how far the Government have contributed to finding some solution of the transport problem in Europe? I understand they have done something, but so far information has not been available. It would be interesting and useful to have some facts on that point. Another question I would like to ask the Chancellor, who I understand is going to reply to this Debate, is whether there is

real equality in the distribution of supplies among the various European nations. Reports conflict on this point. There is some suggestion that some countries are far better off than others. So far there has been no authentic information, and if it could be supplied I, for one, would be obliged.
I want to turn briefly to our home problems. Like many hon. Members opposite, I wonder whether the Government's arrangements for the co-ordination of the work of the various Departments are adequate. I would not exaggerate the importance of co-ordination. I am sure we can have far too much co-ordination of Government Departments. Ministers are often far too busy being coordinated instead of being at work in their Departments. But it does appear on some aspects of the Government's work that it would be possible to improve the machinery of co-ordination. It would be possible in the light of experience to strengthen it and make it more flexible. We understand that a food committee of Ministers has been sitting with the Prime Minister at its head. It may be. that that food committee has been in existence for a long time, but we did not know. If it has been in existence for a long time it would perhaps have been better if we had known. If it were possible for that food committee to become a permanent feature, or at least for a long period, of the machinery of government it would, I think, be an advantage.
But I think that there is an even deeper problem here. Food is only part of the general economic problem. It is related, as we know, to currency, manpower, and to the general system of priorities. I am inclined to think that the Government will have a recurrence of certain troubles unless they set up some form of adequate economic general staff. There is machinery for economic co-ordination in Whitehall, but I am not at all sure—I may be wrong and I would like the Chancellor to answer this point if I am wrong—that the Cabinet has adequate and up-to-date economic information in all fields when certain decisions are taken. I may be wrong about that, but I am inclined to think if we had something in the nature of an economic general staff, comparable in status and size with the Imperial General Staff with which we conducted war operations, there would be some improvement in the work of the


Government. I would like to hear from the Chancellor what his views are about that and, if it is possible, some information of the extent to which such machinery does exist. 
There are many other points that I wanted to raise but they have been gone over very fully by other speakers and I will not detain the House much longer. There is one last point I must make. I would urge the Minister of Food to make quite sure he has got in this country the maximum equality in the enjoyment of such food as is available. I agree that there is some exaggeration of the amount of luxury eating in this country. It is also true that if all luxury eating were cut down the amount of food thus made available would make very little difference spread over the whole country. But that is not the point. In a situation like this no section of the community should be seen to have any kind of physical advantage at all. In a situation like this it is important that the great mass of the people who are deprived of necessities, who have not got sufficient food, should not, even mistakenly, have the view that some privileged class is getting more food than that to which they are entitled. I understand that cuts are being made in factory and workshop canteens. That may not be so, and if the Chancellor can give reassuring news on that point I shall be obliged. I would ask the Minister of Food to try, if he can, to ensure more effective control over the distribution of non-rationed food so as to make quite sure there is a minimum of inequality and we all share what is going.
I will conclude with this general submission to the Minister of Food, that if he can find any device, if he can develop any means at all, if he can show any resource, any initiative, to secure as rapidly as possible some improvement of this situation, he can rely on the full, enthusiastic and confident support of the people on these benches. I feel, speaking for myself, that his speech today was a reassuring speech— [Interruption.] It was a reassuring speech in so far as his conduct is in question. No speech that is dealing with a great world situation of this kind can possibly be reassuring; of course it cannot; but so far as the Minister's handling of the situation was in question, I say that, so far as I am concerned, his speech was reassuring. If in

that spirit he can continue with his work he can count on the loyal co-operation of his colleagues on the back benches.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In spite of the grave words which have been uttered this afternoon by the Minister and others, I wonder even now whether Members of this House and the general public outside are adequately aware of the gravity of the situation in India, and of the responsibility that attaches to His Majesty's Government, and, indeed, to the whole House, in that connection. A few days ago, with nine other Members from both Houses, I came back from India, having had the honour to form part of a Parliamentary delegation. As the House knows, Parliamentary delegations of that sort are seldom unanimous upon political matters, but upon the question of the food situation in India we were indeed unanimous. I know I speak for the whole delegation when I say we all feel ourselves under an obligation to direct, as far as we can, the attention of this House, and of the Government, to the situation out there.
In India they are not worrying about dried eggs and jellies. I felt a certain air of unreality about the Debate today. In India it is a question of death by starvation. I do not wish to exaggerate or to try and frighten the House, but it is a question of death by starvation, possibly for very large numbers of people. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food spoke about the grain shortage in India. I think he under-estimated it. The latest information last month was that the grain shortage was something approaching 3,000,000 tons. That is not all, because the situation is daily getting worse with the lack of rain in certain parts of the country. There are no reserves held by the Government and there is no carryover from past years.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the news of this situation in India was of relatively recent date as far as he was concerned. I do not wish to make party capital out of it, but I think it will be found as early as last July— [Interruption]. I am not trying to make party capital out of it; I am only pointing out that as early as last July the shortage was stated to be 1,500,000 tons, since when the situation has deteriorated. One


may speak of millions of tons of grain deficiency. I think in order to bring it home to the people of this country it should be translated into other terms. Rationing takes place in India in the towns at present, and until quite recently the ration in most towns was I lb. per head per day. That is 365 lbs. per year. At that rate, every million tons of grain represents, if my arithmetic is correct, the annual ration for something like 6.3 million people, so that a deficiency of 3,000,000 tons of grain means that the rations for three times 6.3 millions, that is just under 19,000,000 people, are deficient. I see that, according to the evening papers, the ration in India, in the towns, has been reduced to 12 ounces per head, which brings the deficiency up to rations for about 24,000,000 people. The House will therefore see that the situation is indeed grave
At present, so far as rations in the towns are concerned, India is completely dependent on imports, and on imports for something far more important, that is, for the maintenance of public confidence. Without public confidence, there can be no procurement, because, in a country composed entirely of peasant farmers, as soon as confidence breaks down they hold on to their stocks and procurement ceases. I feel that anyone speaking on the Indian food situation has a heavy responsibility, because it is clearly one's duty not to create feelings of panic when unnecessary. It is equally one's duty to impress the gravity of the situation upon the House, and I hope that what I have said will be considered adequate. India has no assured imports of grain supplies. India does not know what she is going to be sent. She has been made various half-promises by His Majesty's Government, but nothing is assured and definite, and the first thing I ask on behalf of India is that she should know where she stands. The Minister of Food has said that, tomorrow or in the next few days, he would be engaged in talks with the Indian Food Mission. I want to let him know that those of us who have been to India on this delegation regard the situation as extremely serious and that we shall not leave him alone about it.
What are the Government going to do about rice? I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask a question about the allocation of Siamese rice. I have looked up

the figures and find that on the first alloaction of Siamese rice, Cuba gets 60,000 tons, and yet Cuba refuses to ration rice. It is alleged that all the South-East Asia Command area, excluding India, has been given preference over India so far as rice is concerned. These statements may or may not be true, and I do not vouch for them, but there are rumours going round and I ask the Chancellor to deny or confirm them. It would be an ugly thing if there is a food famine in India. We had one in Bengal in 1943, and we do not want it repeated this year in Madras, Mysore, Bombay and possibly elsewhere. We ought not to contemplate with equanimity famine over such wide areas. There is a political argument which also applies. It is not betraying any secret when I say that, in the next few months, India will be going through a very difficult political time—a time the gravity of which can hardly be exaggerated. If to these grave political difficulties are added conditions of famine in many parts of the country, the situation will hardly bear contemplation.
I want now to come to the question of responsibility. It is no good concealing the fact that His Majesty's Government are primarily responsible for food policy in India. We hope that very soon there will be Provincial Governments operating, but, under the present dispensation, the form of Government at the Centre, owing to the failure to arrive at Federation before the war, is the same form of Government as that which was laid down under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, and it can scarcely be said that, so far as central food policy is concerned, India has self-government. Indian representatives on international food conferences are not chosen by the elected representatives of the Indian people. They are, in effect, nominated by the Indian Government, which means that their nomination is subject to the veto of Whitehall. We have in this House a direct responsibility for the food policy of the Indian Government. I urge upon the Government that this is not a party question. I shall not attempt to make party capital out of it. I urge the Government to face the fact that the gravest aspect of this food problem is the Indian one. I feel extraordinarily uneasy and anxious about it. The time has come when the most Herculean efforts must be undertaken to satisfy Indian needs. The organisation


is there and all that is needed are the grain supplies from the rest of the world. I most earnestly beg the Government to take the necessary action.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: I think I must be one of the last of the new Members of this Parliament to make my maiden speech. Up to now, I have been rather influenced by Disraeli's advice to a new Member who sought his views about addressing this House. Said Disraeli: "It is better the House wonder why you do not speak, than why you do." I feel I cannot rely on that subterfuge any longer, and so must ask for the sympathy and indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time.
The disquieting news about the world food position, and particularly the inadequate cereal harvest, comes at a very unfortunate moment in our affairs. After the privations and hardships of the war years, our people, and the people of other countries too, were beginning to feel that they were just about due for a break. But, from the statement made to us today, it is obvious that that will not come about just yet. In fact, surveying the world food position, I am reminded of an old Scottish grace before meat:
 O, Lord, look o'er us a'
There's four of us, but only meat for twa,
And ane could eat it a'.
I want to find out just what is the complaint or charge against the Minister of Food and the Government. I heard some complaint about delay in making a statement soon enough, about the world food position, but that was very satisfactorily answered, I thought, by the Minister himself during his speech. If the complaint relates to a shortage of wheat and rice as a result of recent news about world crop failures, then I think the Government have no charge to meet. It has been said, and on this side of the House as well, that the Government are at fault for the reduction of the wheat acreage in this country.
But arrangements for the British 1946 wheat crop were made in the early part of last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) was Minister of Agriculture. The bulk of the wheat grown in this country is winter wheat and was actually sown during September, October and November of last year. So it should be obvious to the House that the arrangements for

this year's wheat crop were made before the present Government took Office. I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport was wrong in the arrangements he made. Personally, I thought at the time that the decision to ease up on cereal crops and encourage a bigger production of meat, pork, poultry and eggs was a good one, and I would probably have done the same myself. But the point is that any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, or of the Government, because of our domestic wheat policy is quite unjustified. The wheat shortage is a world shortage and affects every country, but one would have thought from a perusal of the Tory Press this last week or two, and from speeches made in this House this afternoon, that the reason we have a wheat shortage is because we have a Labour Government. It is nothing of the sort; it is a world problem. I cannot read anywhere that the Government of the United States of America or the Government of Canada, France or any other country in the world—all of whom are affected—are today being arraigned on a charge of neglect and incompetence.
I have often heard it said by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise. I am going to suggest that it is the prerogative of those of us on the Government benches to advise, especially when we have some specialised knowledge and experience of the subject to put before the House. It so happens that I have a lifetime's experience of the food business in a variety of directions, and I have one or two suggestions which I would like to press on the attention of the Government. First of all, in my view, the food problem has not hitherto had a high enough priority in the counsels of our Government. As a result of what has happened during the last week or two, Ministers should realise that this question of food and the feeding of the people of this country is the most important domestic question today. Just to give some idea of the magnitude of the food problem, may I remind the House that in prewar days we imported into this country 1,000,000 tons of meat per annum, 500,000 tons of butter, 400,000tons of bacon and 5,000,000 tons of wheat. That was the position before the war when, as Sir John Boyd-Orr has reminded us, 60 per cent. of the people of this country were not getting enough


to eat. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) amid the cheers of his comrades—if that is the correct word—was chipping the Government about our failure to give priority to the question of food. In those prewar days, when we had a Tory Government, 60 per cent. of the people of this country could not get enough to eat. So much for the Tory Party's idea of food priority. Any comparison with prewar figures will be quite invidious. Our imports and home production of foodstuffs for the future must be in very much greater volume than we have been accustomed to think about in the past. Despite the most intensive drive for home-produced food, our higher standard of living will be dependent, not upon the same imports as prewar, but a greatly increased tonnage and variety.
I agree, as has been said, that we have to give this food question a proper priority in the counsels of this Government and, indeed, any Government. As a first step towards putting food in its right perspective, I recommend that the Minister of Food should be a member of the Cabinet. I find that it is a surprise to most people that the Minister of Food is not today a member of the Cabinet. Also, I am not completely convinced that the immediate food problem is entirely one of currency and harvests. I think transport, handling and flexibility of policy are important factors. Handling and transport are vital. The Minister of Food should sit in the highest councils of the Government and, across the Cabinet Table, should press for the necessary currency, transport and manpower in order, effectively and satisfactorily, to feed the people of this country. I know that the Minister of Food and the Government are just as keen as I am, or anyone else in this House, to increase the present food supplies, but I would beg of them to re-examine their arrangements and to endeavour, at the earliest possible moment, to try and obtain greater quantities of food for the people.
This Government are out to obtain a higher standard of living for the people. Our plans to achieve this aim by the socialisation of basic industries and services in the national interest instead of in the interest of private profit are excellent, but it will be some time—in some cases a year or two—before the effect of these

policies will be felt in this country. In the meantime, we are faced with an immediate problem of doing something about the standard of living now. It should not be beyond the wit of this Government, in collaboration with the food trade of this country, to effect some improvement in the early future. The successful handling of this matter can play a great part in other directions in our national life and help to solve some of the problems which are baffling us today.
From several quarters we get reports about disappointing productive effort, absenteeism, lack of incentive and lack of interest. My right hon. Friend the. Minister of Fuel and Power, speaking last weekend in connection with the output of coal, used these words:
It is alleged that men are tired, that they are not getting sufficient food, and that they do not get sufficient opportunity to spend what they earn on consumer goods.
But we are warned that there can be no increase in consumer goods until there is greater production and a bigger volume of exports. On the one hand the workers say, "Give us more food and more consumable goods, and we will be able to give better work and produce more." On the other hand, we are told there can be no more consumable goods until people work harder and produce more. It is a kind of vicious circle. This vicious circle goes on, and it must be broken. The fact is that, as a result of conditions inherited by this Government, life today in this country is too drab, and I beg of the Government to make renewed efforts and concentrate upon endeavouring to increase the supply and the variety of food so that we can get this greater productive effort that we want.
In conclusion, may I say that 1 know from my personal acquaintance with the Minister of Food, and from my experience of him since he took office, that he took on this job imbued with a keen desire to obtain every ounce of food of every kind and from every quarter, in order to try to relieve the position of the long suffering and hard-pressed housewives of this country. I beg of him that, in carrying out that policy, if he is in difficulties or finds any frustration, let him come to this House and take us and the country into his confidence. Whatever the difficulty may be, I am sure that we in this House and the people in the country too will be behind him in helping him to solve those


difficulties in carrying out the great job he is doing in feeding the people of this country.

9.3 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: Having heard that only one woman was to be asked to speak in this Debate, I am glad, even at this late hour, to have the opportunity of making a few comments. Before I do so, I would like to take the opportunity of complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) on his maiden speech. We on these benches know that in the party which has come into power in this country, there are many people who know their subject well and know how to express their views upon it. My hon. Friend has expressed his knowledge of the subject on which he was speaking, in a way that we all appreciate, and I know this House will look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
My comments tonight on this matter in the short time at my disposal may become somewhat controversial, but, first, I want to say how pleased are the working class of this country that in a crisis of this sort a Labour Government are in control of the situation. I remember that in 1920 and 1921, when I took part in unemployment demonstrations, and, with thousands of other unemployed people in Liverpool, received the batons of the police in demonstrations against unemployment and hunger, when men who had fought in the1914–18 war were prepared to sell the medals they had won in. order to buy food, a Conservative Government had promised all sorts of things in order to gain a majority. They did gain it, and they never kept one of the promises they made.
I am delighted that in a crisis of this sort those of us who know the economics of our own people, those of us who understand what our own people have had to put up with, are in control of the situation and know exactly what they are going to do in relation to it. I am not going to say I am sorry that the whole of the facts were not given to us in the way the Opposition wanted. My people, the working class, do not understand when you talk of millions of tons, millions of bushels and millions of pounds They are only used to understanding an ordinary week's wages, which they are able to get from the employing class in order to obtain

such food as they are able to buy. I am not at all sorry that a lot of facts were not given. During the last 25 years corners have been established in markets, in order to put up the price of the foodstuff that was in short supply. The Government that we now have appreciate that position. I hope they will continue to keep the confidence of the people of this country by making certain no corners are established in any foodstuffs of the people.
I have here menus of some of the hotels in various towns, menus which show no shortage of any sort of foodstuff at all. In these places, if you can pay for it, you can get anything you want, and any amount you want. The people of this country are concerned about that aspect too, and they are wondering if the position is going to be similar to that which arose when fish was thrown back into' the sea because it was. caught in too large quantities for the middlemen to get the price they wanted. That is the sort of thing this Government have got to watch, never mind what effect it has upon those who have always had plenty and who, because they have the money at their disposal, will always be able to get plenty. As a Labour Government we have to see—and I am confident that the Government will see to it—that there is proper distribution of every type of food, and that when a certain type of food is in short supply, another type of food is transferred in order to meet the shortage. Had it not been that the hour is late, and that there are others who want to take part in the discussion, I would have read these menus. They would have looked very nice in HANSARD.
I did hope that I would have the opportunity, earlier in the Debate, of being able to speak at very much greater length than I am permitted to do at the moment. AH I want to do now is to draw a distinction between the types of food that people who have the money can get, and the types of food that people who belong to the working class have to put up with, because of their inability to put their hands into their pockets when they want to, in order to take their wives and families out to a restaurant. I want to draw attention—as I am entitled to do, representing an area where there is poverty—to the position in which for years working-class people have been


denied the night to work. 1 never heard any questions from the Opposition with regard to that position, when, in 1926, miners were locked out for six months, because they would not accept less money. They starved. In this country, at the moment, nobody is starving, and there will not be anybody starving because this side of the House controls the position. Had the position been the other way 1 do not know what the situation would have been at the present moment. I have some idea of this, because I went through the whole of the struggle of the unemployed, in Liverpool, between 1920 and 1921 and onwards. All I am asking is that this Government of ours should pay particular attention to the fact that the people of this country want to know that a watch is being kept upon all food supplies, irrespective of what they are, and that they will not be left without when other people have got too much. That is the sort of thing the workers of this country want to know.
I compliment the Government on their handling of this very difficult position, because it is not something that has been created by the advent of a Labour Government, as was suggested from the other side of the House. It is a world situation and must be handled carefully. It must be handled by people who understand what the workers of this country, and of other countries, require. They must watch carefully that no little pockets of private interests are created, that food is not drawn into a centre and controlled by separate interests, who, when a shortage arises, will demand whatever price they want for it. The workers of this country want to know positively that food is being controlled by this Government, that the only shortages there will be will be shortages applicable to everybody. I know the working class, being one of them and living among them, and they will be able to accept any shortage if they know that it is absolutely unavoidable. May I say in conclusion that I hope that all these movements which have been created within the last two or three days by the Conservative Party for their own political benefit will go out of existence, and that the situation will be judged on the facts as they have been given by the Minister of Food, namely, that there is a world shortage. The people of this country are assured that their own people

are in control, and they can be certain that every possible effort will be made to see that the shortage does not go any further.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like, first, to add my personal congratulations to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) on his maiden speech. He quoted a maxim of Disraeli to us, and in the light of that,-and of his own words, I am sure that, if he keeps silence too obstinately in future, we shall all wonder what is the cause of it. I would also like to say how much I appreciated the maiden speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare)—a most noteworthy contribution to our Debate I am sure we shall all look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I think this has been a very useful day, and I do not think anyone, in any part of the House, can complain at the temperate tone in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) introduced this topic. It is quite obvious that we are facing a grave situation in regard to our food supplies, and it is not a matter which any of us would like to exploit for party reasons. Though I must say that I was a little tempted by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) to reply in the same vein as that in which she addressed us, I do not think that that would be quite the right way to handle it, and there is quite enough to say in my limited time to render that sort of speech unnecessary.
If this Debate has had one result that is clear to me, it is this: The Government must be under no illusion about the fact that co-operation in Parliament between the parties on matters of national importance must be founded upon the full disclosure 0f information. It really is not possible for us, or for any party, to give wise counsel without information, and what has clearly emerged today is that there has been a perhaps natural hangover, on the part of the Ministry of Food, from the war, when stocks were highly secret and were not disclosed as freely as peacetime conditions render both practicable and, I think, wise. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food takes that lesson away


from this Debate, the Debate will have served a useful purpose.
In spite of some of the speeches, and looking at the matter objectively, I think Ministers and, indeed, the whole House must realise that beyond doubt they are facing a very sharp explosion of indignation on the part of the housewives of this country at the present moment. The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) said he was fortunate' enough not to get any letters on this subject. [Hon. Members: "No."] I do not know, but, perhaps, they are very fortunate in his part of the world. But many people and many housewives—and this is not a party point—are feeling a strain after six years of rationing and of deprivation, not only of food but of household linen and of coal; and each new reduction, however necessary, however inevitable, is a matter for resentment. But I think it is fair to say that for the sharpness of that explosion hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have, in some part, themselves to blame. The suddenness with which the announcement was made last week created a painful impression. When that was combined with—I do not say any very definite promises of social amelioration in the matter of food—a general expectation that was. aroused throughout the country that the advent of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to power would see an immediate improvement in all sorts of conditions, including food, it made the shock rather a painful one. As to that suddenness, a good deal of our time has been taken up today in discussion of what was and what was not said in the early autumn of last year and the early months of this. In the minds of the ordinary housewives, at least, the shock came as a complete revelation. The cat was in the bag too long. It is not a thing to be surprised at, that when it emerged it was inclined both to scratch and to spit.
I confess I listened with the utmost sympathy—having been in that position myself—as well as care to what the right hon. Gentleman said about this matter. It did seem to me, and it seems to me still, not altogether free from obscurity, because the right hon. Gentleman advanced two arguments at the same time. First of all, he said he had given a general warning in sufficiently clear and explicit terms to leave no one in any doubt that we were facing a serious situation. At

the same time, he excused himself from more explicit utterances by saying he was afraid of creating a sellers' market and, also, of inducing people to hoard grain. The two things seem to me to march very oddly together. If he were anxious to avoid by any utterance of his creating a sellers' market, then it would be understandable if he had given us no warning at all. But the more explicit he claims his warning to have been, the less value there is in his argument about the sellers' market. It must be clear to all of us that whatever he said on the matter the whole world knows it is a sellers' market, and he was doing nothing by any utterance of his to put prices up a cent a bushel against him. But I should like to make it clear that, for my part, I think he has given us a very careful speech today. He has given us a lot of information of which we had not possession previously
It would be a great mistake if thi9 Debate were to run away on the idea of what the right hon. Gentleman said at that time. The real point with which we are concerned is, What did the Government do? We ask ourselves, "When was it apparent that there was going to be this shortage at this time of the year? "It seems to me to be clear that the Ministry of Food, unless it has changed very much, must have had very clear indications of this in August or September. The real pity from the nation's point of view is that, when that shortage became apparent, steps were not taken to provide for the winter sowing of wheat in this country. It is true—I want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman—that he could say, "I did not know the full effect until quite recently." It was not necessary to get a White Paper with every ton and bushel of wheat accurately computed in order to come to a decision. I should have thought that the general omens of wheat supplies in the spring and summer were by August and September sufficiently ominous for action being taken then, which is now being belatedly taken of diverting the call-up of men and urging an increase in the wheat acreage.

Mr. Tiffany: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that there was not much time to give warning, inasmuch as we were using 40 per cent. of English wheat in the mill grist during June of this year? When was there time to give warning?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not think that is at all relevant. It seems to me that the more wheat we can grow in this 'country, the better our position will be. I would make it clear to the House, as some hon. Members may not be aware of our practice of agriculture to the same extent as others, their ways of life not having lain in these pastures, that it is the winter sown crop of wheat in this country that is the important one. Spring wheat is always regarded, in normal times, as rather a "chancy" crop. If you take 15 per cent. as the average for spring sowing and 85 per cent. for winter sowing, you have about a fair proportion. Nothing that has been said today has cleared my mind of the doubt that, if this action had been taken in the autumn, we should have got a good deal of winter wheat sown, and our position would have been to that extent improved. It does seem strange that the Minister of Agriculture should have written to county chairmen on this matter only last week. What has happened between the two Ministries for action to be so tardy and belated? I say nothing more about promises, and what has been or what has not been done. I would point out in passing, however, that it does show that the mere change of a system inside this Government according to some theoretical or doctrinal conception of Socialism is a very feeble instrument in the face of the world affairs through which we are passing today. I have now had the chance of sitting in the Opposition to two Labour Governments, and it is a curious thing that on both occasions I have had this same experience of a great deal of talk about what Socialism can do during an election and when the Socialists are in power they talk not of that, but of world causes. Leaving that alone, the Government today, with their disclosures, remind me of what someone once said was the function of a politician, namely, "Trying to explain to a sceptical and bewildered electorate the defects of an inscrutable Providence."
It would be a good thing if hon. Members opposite would remember this humbling fact, that even the weighty schemes of Socialism do require through Ministers to be supplemented by a good deal of practical wisdom and forethought if they are to be of any use to anyone at all. In making a fair summary of what we have been discussing today, it

does appear to me that something has gone wrong in the way that this matter has been handled, and I put it no higher than that, which is high enough for my purpose. Let us diagnose the complaint from which the right hon. Gentlemen are suffering. It is like being called to the bedside of a child who cannot describe the symptoms with coherence and clarity, and one must do one's best by calling on one's medical experience and knowledge of similar cases. It does seem to be a very remarkable state of affairs. I should like, first of all, to say a word about the Ministry of Food. I was honoured at one time by being connected with that Department. In fact, I was in charge of it from April, 1939, to April, 1940, and I left it with good stocks and a competent organisation. Under the inspiring leadership of my Noble Friend Lord Woolton it improved in organisation and in efficiency and rendered very great service to the nation in a time of stress. I cannot believe that this machine has suddenly lost its efficiency.

Sir B. Smith: It has not.

Mr. Morrison: I do not believe it has. It has now had nearly seven years to run itself in, and its main task in life is to forecast all supplies. I cannot believe that that machine failed to forecast the situation at this time and much earlier than we have been told. Therefore, I think that the information might have been in the hands of the Government in plenty of time for them to take those steps such as I have suggested, namely, seeing more winter wheat was being planted, restoring the acreage payment, and looking after the manpower in agriculture, all of which would have made a big difference at the present time. Neither do I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would for one moment withhold any information of that sort from us. I know him too well. I think the trouble lies in the Government as a whole, and in the way in which they are concentrating at the present time on Party issues, while neglecting the practical interests of the people.
The Minister of Food in the course of his speech today gave us an account of his missions at various times in connection with these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Oxford' University (Sir A. Salter) compared him to a Biblical character, namely, Job. He


seemed to me in his own account to be like blind Samson, eyeless at Gaza. There he was and he did his best, no doubt, but what were his colleagues doing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Cutting his hair."] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's "thatch" suffered in the process in any way.
I want the House seriously to consider what is the position of the Ministry of Food. There is no Minister in any Government who needs so much collaboration from his colleagues as the Minister of Food. His Department touches our national life at every point. For example, he needs to collaborate closely with the Minister of Agriculture and we have seen a rather lamentable divergence of functions in this matter today. Only last week were instructions sent to the county war agricultural committees, when this thing has been hanging over our heads for three or four months. He needs also to collaborate very closely with the Minister of Labour. He needs manpower for his own task, if flour mills are to be repaired and managed, while if the queues in the shops are to be lessened there needs to be more assistance, and if the call-up of agricultural manpower is to be diverted or mitigated the Ministry of Labour has to assist. He needs transport for all his activities all over the world.
He needs, also, collaboration from the Foreign Office, and on that matter I would like to say a word or two on the question of stocks going to Europe. I think it is our duty to do what we can for people who are in a bad condition, but I think we should do it with our eyes open, measuring at the same time our own need, and our duty to our own people, and the extent of any amelioration in the position that any gift from us can practically bring about. I do not say that in any unselfish spirit. I believe that the recovery of Europe today depends on the recovery of this country. But it would be great folly not only to ourselves, but to the recovery of Europe as a whole, if we were to suffer our own population to lose their spirit and health in a vain endeavour to mitigate, in some fractional and mathematical proportion, the great tragedy- overseas.
More than anything, the Minister of Food requires the collaboration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We hope to hear from the Chancellor something about

the great controversy as to how it is best to use dollars—on dried egg, films or tobacco. For all these reasons the Minister of Food requires to be at the very heart of affairs, and I support wholeheartedly what was said earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. T. Macpherson), that he ought to be a member of the Cabinet. It is a very large Cabinet, and it is not at all exclusive. The right hon. Gentleman, whose task at the present time has acquired tremendous importance, should be in the closest touch with his colleagues. In this country we are fed and supplied by a vast, intricate organisation, whether by private enterprise before the war, or by the Ministry of Food during the war, and food has come so easily to the breakfast tables of the vast majority of the people that they think it gets there without effort. But it does not, and this has shown how small a matter can upset our supplies.
We should not take too light a view of the importance of food to our economy. I think it most important that we should improve our food supplies. We had a speech the other day from the Minister of Fuel and Power—I heard it myself on the wireless—in which he gave an adequate, if sombre, exhortation to the miners, and to the mining industrial in general, to get more coal. He said it was useless to talk of more food until more coal was produced. Personally, I do not think you will get more coal until you get more food as well. The melancholy position at the moment is that we are getting less food and less coal. Something must be done to break the vicious circle, and to re-stimulate the energies of the population. It is a task of the highest importance, but one which is well worth achieving. What is required is a greater incentive for the natural energies of men. They ought to get more real wealth. It is no good wages going up if those wages cannot purchase what is required. It is by the provision of amenities, comforts and more health and strength that the people of the country can be rewarded at a time when they are being called upon to help with the reconstruction of our beloved country.
This analysis leads me to the conclusion that Ministers ought to have known about this shortage in ample time to have taken more effective steps than they have


taken. Half the trouble is the tremendous pressure upon Ministers, pressure which they are largely responsible for creating. Ministers are tied up in Standing Committees when they ought to be attending to the heavy tasks of reconstruction which await us. We are also overburdened with legislation of a contentious character. I would like to know, if an answer can be given—I do not suppose it can—how many hours the Cabinet has spent in discussing food reports and how many hours discussing the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act or the nationalisation of coal. When Ministers take upon themselves the burden of this contentious legislation, it is no wonder they cannot pay attention to the warnings of the Minister of Food. Not only Ministers, but the people, are affected by this contentious legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council reminds me, when I gaze at him, of the desire he expressed recently for first-class rows in Parliament. We have had some this week, and what good have they done the people of the country? The country is facing a very difficult time in this food situation, and my lament is that we are not facing it with the unity, with the subservience of all sectional interests to national interests, that we had when the lead was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). We are not getting the right lead, and I regard this whole bungle about the food disclosures as evidence that the country in its need is not getting the lead which it requires. I ask the Government, in the days that remain to them, whether they cannot concentrate more on practical measures for the relief of necessity in the country and less on doctrinaire disputes.

9.37 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I will at once answer the last question put by the right hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison). He asked me to reveal a Cabinet secret by saying whether the Cabinet had spent more time in consideration of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill or the food situation. The answer is simple. We have spent more time on the latter subject. The Cabinet did not need to linger long over the very simple act of justice

which it is seeking to perform and which was abundantly approved by the House last night. Food is more complicated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food dealt in great, but not, I think the House will agree, in too great, detail, at considerable, but I think the House will agree, not too great, length, with his stewardship. He gave a sturdy account of his stewardship, and he dealt with the affairs of his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. M Webb, who made a very interesting speech later in the Debate, said—and the House approved him when he said—that on the whole he considered that, in spite of the manifold difficulties, not of my right hon. Friend's making nor of anybody's making, but of Nature's making, an act of God and so on, the speech of my right hon. Friend was reassuring.
There are two subjects which need to be very sharply and clearly distinguished. There is, on the one side, the international problem, the world food shortage. And there is another problem linked with it in practice, but yet quite separate—our own national position, not only as regards supplies but as regards finance, dollar reserves, and the like. On the international problem I propose to say relatively little, but to concentrate princi-. pally on the other problem, on which several hon. Members have asked me a number of questions which it is proper I should do my best to answer. On the international side we have a long series of terrible and unforeseen postwar calamities. I do not speak now of any of the shocking impacts of the war, of the acts of the enemy upon our friends and of the devastation of one country after another. I speak of this series of shortages, droughts, failures of the monsoon, and the like, which, I repeat, are nobody's fault. No human agency is responsible but they do constitute the world problem against which my right hon. Friend has been battling and of which he has been speaking today.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) has just come back from India. He is not now here, I think, but he appealed in an earlier speech—a very moving speech—that we should do our best to assure the greatest aid which we could render to the Indian peoples threatened, through no fault of their own, with calamitous famine. I say


without any hesitation that His Majesty's Government will, of course, do all in their power to endeavour to stave off this shocking calamity now overwhelming the peoples of India. I hasten to add that even our utmost may, against this background, be terribly small. None the less we shall do our utmost, using to the full for this purpose the machinery, on the one hand, of the Combined Food Boards, and, on the other hand, of the recently set up and very hopeful new international organisation, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, to which we are deeply committed and of which a very distinguished Member from this House, the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr) is now the Chairman. We shall do our utmost. And let me say in passing, by way of linking this topic with the national aspect, that as regards India the problem is wholly one of physical supplies and of shipping to carry them, and sources from which they can be drawn. It is in no respect a financial problem. -There is no lack of capacity to pay in terms of money in India. On the contrary they have a vast sterling balance. It is a question of supply and we shall do our best to assist them.
I would like to turn at this point to deal with our own national affairs and to answer some of the points put by hon. Members on the other side of the House. I should like to speak of some of these financial questions connected with the general exchange position which must concern us in this country, and me in particular holding the Office that I now do. I would like also to say a word in reply to several Members as to how we are organising our import programmes, and on what principles they are compiled and executed.
One word on the American loan. On 13th December last this House carried, by a very large majority, 345 votes to 98, a Motion which I moved on behalf of the Government approving the proposed financial arrangements between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government. Discussions regarding these arrangements are now just beginning in Congress, where there are supporters of this arrangement and opponents. Until Congress has reached a decision neither I, nor any other spokesman of His Majesty's Government, nor, I am sure, of

the Front Opposition Bench, nor, I would hope, any other responsible Member of the House, would make speeches or say things which would in any degree influence the decision of Congress on this matter adversely to the desire of the great majority in this House. The House will, therefore, appreciate that at certain points I must bear that consideration in mind and exercise a certain reserve. I may not be able to speak with the completest frankness although on broad grounds, I agree that we should give the very fullest information to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked me some questions as to our import programmes and how we operate them, to which I will reply specifically in a moment. But what I am about to say relates to the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers). I did not hear his speech—I was taking a little light refreshment at the time—but I have been told the substance of what he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford referred to the same matter. I would like, briefly, to give the House an account of how this import programming is worked; and I will lift a little the veil which we generally keep discreetly drawn over the workings of the machinery of Government. It will do no harm in this case, and, indeed, I think it will be of interest to the House to know just how we carry out this work. This import programming began with the war, and it has been going on for years. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were Members of the Coalition Government, took part in it, and are aware, in general, how the thing works. They started working it in detail. The various Departments for which they were responsible carried out, at the beginning of the war, a system of import programming, primarily because there was a great shortage of shipping as a result of destruction by enemy action; and, secondly, because the needs of the war effort had to take precedence over the private profit priorities which ruled in this field before the war. We had to set private profit aside, and substitute public interest and victory in the great struggle. Therefore, we had to plan, instead of letting people do what they liked.
This programming was introduced even before the Coalition Government, in the


early days of what we called the "phoney" stages of the war. Import programming began even then. What happened? The available shipping space, which was the primary determinant of these arrangements, was shared out among various Departments who were interested in the matter. The Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply, who were responsible for raw materials, and other Departments concerned, put in their claims for tonnage. These were all reviewed and brought together. What was thought to be less essential was set aside. It is very remarkable to recall that, although, before the war, we used to require 55,000,000 tons of imports a year, we were able to maintain the national life and the war effort during the war, under a plan of this kind, with only 25,000,000 tons a. year, less than half the prewar requirement. We suffered restriction, of course.

Sir A. Salter: Dry cargo, other than oil.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, dry cargo. These are the figures, other than oil. The right hon. Gentleman took a very vigorous and creditable part in that planning, so he knows about it. Anyhow, we cut out half. That is my point. Planning succeeded in cutting this pre-war programme by more than half, yet we maintained the national life and won the war. We had to weigh one alternative against another. That planning process has gone on. The great change has been that, when the war ended, and when Lend-Lease ended—this point is important from that aspect—the programming went on, but the bottleneck was no longer shipping. It became finance instead. The question no longer was, "Can we find ships?" but, "Can we find money?" and in particular, "Can we find dollars, or the equivalent of dollars?" We have continued the same practice, subject to this new criterion since the war ended. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. D. Eccles) asked me a question. He also was mixed up most creditably with these matters during the war. He helped to administer this machine. He asked me whether some priorities still prevailed now, as then, in respect of food and other commodities. The answer to him is "Yes." They do, provided—I know he knows too much about the matter to go wrong on this

point, although some people outside might—we do not use the word "priority "in too absolute a sense. There was no total, absolute priority for food over tobacco, even during the war. We still were able to smoke. It would have been possible, no doubt, to have brought in less tobacco during the war and rather more food. That was not the decision of the War Cabinet or of the Government. I do not think there was disagreement.

Mr. Eccles: The Ministry of Food bid for tobacco supplies during the war; it was considered as a food.

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend calls tobacco a food, there is of course plenty of priority for food; but I was speaking of food as distinct from tobacco, and in that sense food was not given the total and absolute all-along-the-line priority over tobacco, any more than it had a priority over manufactured goods or raw materials. What we really determined during the war, and are still determining, is not so much priority in an absolute sense, as proportions—the due and proper proportions of imports. We are now following, in substance, the same principle as we were following then. Food, and certain other very necessary raw materials, etc., the basic requirements in terms of food and raw materials, are given—I do not want to use the word "priority," which is a little misleading— but a very high place in our import programming, along with certain other things, to make up the total which we can bring in.
I would like to establish the right perspective in which to consider this programming. I will give some figures in a moment, but, before I do so, I think that the perspective is rightly given when I say that, owing to uncertainties of the American Loan and other factors, such as the whole world situation and the general shortage, it would be very unwise, and the Government have not committed that act of unwisdom, to fix our programmes too far ahead. We have, however, made programmes for the first six months of the year; and I will give figures presently. On the basis of the first half of this year, in the programme which we contemplate, imports of food will be larger in tonnage than they were in the later war years. As to the composition of the tonnage, the diet to be provided will be definitely better in some respects than it,


was in the later war years, though it will be worse in others. There will be less meat, and less fats than in 1944, but more milk, tea, fruit and fish—more of the variety foods. We are doing our best, as my right hon. Friend has said, to give greater variety and greater tonnage. That of course is additional to what will be procured from home production. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will speak tomorrow. I have had a few words with him, and he is aware of the points which have been put today; it would be a mistake and a duplication if I were to attempt to answer now questions which are addressed to him. But I emphasise—

Mr. Eden: I do not object to that arrangement, but no doubt the Government will bear in mind that hitherto there was to have been a Motion tomorrow which would have made this discussion quite out of Order.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It may cramp the style a bit, but it may be possible to get some of the points in. It is a fair point, as we are discussing long-term policy.

Mr. Dalton: There are great resources in the British Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman must not be downcast by technicalities of procedure. The Minister of Agriculture is desirous of answering a number of points which have been raised. I cannot answer points in detail which have been raised by his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison).

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I only want to point out that the original arrangement was that we should have two days to discuss agriculture, and specifically the new policy, which is extremely important. I am not objecting, I am only entering a caveat now that in so far as tomorrow is to be taken up with something wholly irrelevant to the subject we are supposed to be discussing, it will give us a claim for asking for more than a day at a later date.

Mr. Dalton: My right hon. Friend the Lord President is always very friendly towards any suggestion put forward by the Opposition to make the best use of the available time of the House. Perhaps we can leave it there for the moment, and see how tomorrow goes; and, if it is not

sufficient, perhaps the matter can be taken up again.
May I say a few words as to the machinery by which this import programming works? My hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford, whose ears have perhaps burned outside at things I have said of him—

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: May I ask a question?

Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get better value if he leaves me alone. I really want to go on. It may be that I shall say what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know. The arrangement is this: The various Departments first put forward their own requirements. My experience at the Treasury is long enough to know that they always overplay their hand to begin with. They all put forward their requirements, which add up, of course, to an impossible total, from a practical point of view. It is well known by everybody who has been in this show. They all come along, and put in their requirements, which cover—I am speaking of the present situation—both requirements for purchases on public account and requirements for private importers as well. These are all scrutinised by the Treasury; it is one of the things the Treasury is there to do. There is a high level inter-Departmental committee of officials, which meets not just once in a while but very frequently, and endeavours to bring all these requirements together, with a little peaceful persuasion, and to compile them into a total which is within the bounds of the possible.
The next step having got the requirements for imports a little compressed and reduced to a reasonable-looking total, is to look at the other side of the account and to consider—I have pointed out that the bottle neck is now finance—how much we can reasonably undertake to pay for in this postwar and post-Lend-Lease period. There, we have to look at the level of exports, to see how they are going on, and what other forms of receipts we are getting in. We also have to look—though the Treasury keep this information to themselves and I do not reveal it to my colleagues who are discreet enough not to ask me for it—at what is happening to our gold and dollar reserves, about which I shall say another word be-


fore I sit down. All these things have to be looked at, in order to consider how much we can reasonably spring for the import programme. There is a Committee on this Balance of Payments, balancing the demand for imports by the Departments, on the one hand, against the possibility of payment. This again is a high level committee of officials, doing this special job under the chairmanship of a senior Treasury official, with the permanent heads of the other Civil Service Departments concerned entitled to attend. It is, therefore, as high level a committee as the Civil Service can furnish. It is the duty of that committee to make recommendations direct to Ministers, and it is the responsibility of the Government, on that recommendation, to take it or leave it or change it. The Cabinet is the final court of appeal in these matters, and takes responsibility for the allocation as finally agreed.
That is the mechanism. I have referred to two official committees having their separate functions, and I repeat that these committees are constantly meeting. The thing is a continuing process. I would go on to say—

Mr. Molson: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his colleagues did not ask him what his gold and dollar reserves are?

Mr. Dalton: I did not exactly say that; what I said was that this was not a matter I was often asked to reveal; and I should have hesitation in revealing it in this House, indeed I would not do it. I also said that some of my colleagues had enough discretion not to ask too often what the figures are, Ministers have discretion in dealing one with another, and there are some things which are relatively secret. There are sometimes leakages, and we want to keep them to a minimum. We have to be very careful sometimes.
The serious point I want to make is that, were it not for the influence of the Treasury in these matters, the whole economic programme and economic life of the country would soon be completely "haywire," because every Department would seek to ask for very much more than it could possibly have. I have been describing this programming in detail, because I wish

the House to see just how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for The Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Brad-dock) said what a fortunate thing it is that we are not a doctrinaire Government, wedded to fatal theories of decontrol for its own sake, nurtured by the German theorists recently landed in this country like Professor Friedrich August von Hayek. We draw on the springs of British commonsense in the practical handling of these complicated problems and we have maintained, and intend to maintain, this control of imports, which has served the country very well in peace as it did in war. To depart from it now, would be a gross error which this Government would not commit.
May I give some figures of how this import programme actually works out now? The House cannot expect me to break up the figures—or as the rather horrible modern phrase has it, break them down—into special commodities, because that would be giving information which might be misinterpreted in our commercial dealings. But I think the House will be interested if I give the main elements in this import programme, expressing them in terms of prospective rates of consumption. These are the figures for the first part of 1946, as approved by the Government, following the procedure I have described: food and agricultural products£300 millions; raw materials,£180 millions; tobacco,£23 millions; manufactured goods,£23 millions; films,£9 millions; other items negligible. The percentages are: food and agricultural products, 56 per cent, in value of the total imports; raw materials 33½ per cent.— between them, therefore, that is 89 per cent., which does not leave very much outside—tobacco 4½ per cent; manufactured goods 4½per cent.; films 1½ per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dried eggs? "] Dried eggs are food. [Hon. Members: "They were."]
There are those who say that we should have no tobacco and no films. I say that His Majesty's Government, having looked at these figures carefully and the possibilities behind them, have decided that as things are now—if we do not get the American loan all sorts of things would have to happen, all sorts of things would have to change, all sorts of things would have to be cut—this is not an excessive provision to enable people to smoke, or. if they wish, to go to the


pictures. In the maintenance of public morale both smoking and pictures are important to many millions. It is all very well for the Conservative Party to try to plan people's lives without consulting them. We believe in reasonable liberty to the consumer. If a man wants to take his wife, or anybody else, to the pictures, why should he not do so? We say that these proportions are so small, and the essential value of them is so large, that we are not prepared, in these conditions, to crush the people into any doctrinaire mould.
A word about our exports. I indicated earlier that, in considering how much we can import, we must take account of how our exports are going. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has authorised me to make public, a few days before he would have announced them, the figures for exports in January. The figures for November, December and January were respectively,£30,000,000,£43,500,000 and£57,000,000. The trend is up, in spite of all those who try to spread alarm and despondency in industry, and in spite of the fact that there was a dock strike in November, which left some goods lying on the quays rather too long, and is reflected in the December and January figures. The upsurge has now asserted itself, and I hope that before long we shall be able to point to even higher figures. I do not want to overestimate the importance of this but it is a movement, a relatively rapid movement, in the direction we shall all desire.
One word on the gold and dollar reserve. We had to announce, for the purposes of Bretton Woods, that at the end of last October our net gold and dollar reserves stood at£450,000,000. That was not, I said then, an excessive figure in all the conditions of the time, having regard to the many potential claims that might accrue against us, particularly if anything went wrong with the American loan negotiations. Through some queer trick of figures, we were represented as owing£3,500,000,000 to a miscellaneous crowd of people, some of whom are our very good friends and some—never mind. I must conserve these gold and dollar reserves; I must keep a watchful eye on them. The House will not expect me to say how much they are today, and if I were to do so the House would not expect to hear that they stood

at the same figure as last October. I must keep a watchful eye on them. If the Treasury intervenes, as it must sometimes do to restrain other Departments, it is purely in order that these reserves shall not be ran down at a dangerous rate.
I want in conclusion to say, and I think this is the sort of thing which I think it is proper for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, that I must warn the House—I am now on our national problems and not on the international side—that there must be great restraint in the circumstances in which we stand in continually practising generosity at the expense of our own people, even in very good causes. Many great demands are made upon us, and we make our contribution. I think we have made an exceptionally fine contribution to these world causes. Take U.N.R.R.A. for example. We shall have contributed soon£155 million to U.N.R.R.A., nearly half the amount at which our gold and dollar reserve stood last October.
Many others make claims upon us. The claim of India, as I have said, is not a monetary one. The Indians have plenty of money with which to pay; it is supplies they want. So far as money is concerned, claims are made upon us for loans, political and commercial, long term credits and all the rest of it; and we must go reasonably slowly in meeting these demands. We cannot meet them all. The general rule must be—there will be exceptions—we must get prompt payment for British services rendered, to whomsoever we render them. It is no good talking about long term grants.
It is, therefore, my duty to say to the House, and I think the House will agree with me, that although each particular item in a programme of generosity to others, taken in isolation,. will have its passionate advocates and a great case may be made for it, yet if accepted in the aggregate they would sink us; and we do not intend to sink. Therefore, there must be a strict limit from now on.
In conclusion, I would say this House has debated this matter in a non-partisan spirit and we appreciate the tone of the speeches made— [Interruption.] Well, I am thinking of the more important speeches. We appreciate the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who led off. After all, we stand here at this short interval after the war, not bowed down but


confronted with great problems and great difficulties. The British housewife has played her part magnificently right through the war. She has sacrificed, she has endured, and she has struggled and starved herself for the sake of her man and her children. To her all our sympathy goes out, and all our desire to do our very best to see that of whatever we can gather together in the way of food supplies she shall have her fair share. There will be no guzzling by a small number. How that is prevented is a matter for the Minister of Food to look after. He has got to deal with it. He has got to prevent it.
This House will, I believe, support the Government tonight in its decision that

we shall endeavour so to organise our food supplies that we get the best opportunities we can out of the limited facilities at present at our disposal, the best opportunities we can for a proper standard of life for our own people, while making our due contribution to this great international problem to which reference has been made. We shall continue, I believe, to show in peace, as in war, that, serene courage that carried us through in the face of many difficulties, though they are of a different sort which confront us now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes past Ten" o'Clock.